Intel HD Graphics 500 versus Intel HD Graphics 4400
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 500 and Intel HD Graphics 4400 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 500
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 96% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 9 GTexel / s versus 4.6 GTexel / s
- 3.1x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 144.0 gflops versus 46 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 22 nm
- 3.3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 6 Watt versus 20 Watt
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2015 versus 3 September 2013 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 9 GTexel / s versus 4.6 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 144.0 gflops versus 46 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 22 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 6 Watt versus 20 Watt |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 4400
- Environ 75% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 350 MHz versus 200 MHz
- Environ 53% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 750 MHz
- Environ 67% de pipelines plus haut: 20 versus 12
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 524 versus 300
- 3.4x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 275 versus 80
- 2.4x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 2143 versus 911
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 7.844 versus 3.525
- 4.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 154.696 versus 35.665
- 4.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.958 versus 0.215
- 3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 9.084 versus 2.987
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 8.335 versus 4.154
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 817 versus 488
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1381 versus 579
- 2.7x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3044 versus 1122
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 817 versus 488
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1381 versus 579
- 2.7x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3044 versus 1122
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 350 MHz versus 200 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 750 MHz |
| Pipelines | 20 versus 12 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 524 versus 300 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 275 versus 80 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2143 versus 911 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.844 versus 3.525 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 154.696 versus 35.665 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.958 versus 0.215 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.084 versus 2.987 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 8.335 versus 4.154 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 817 versus 488 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1381 versus 579 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 versus 1122 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 817 versus 488 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1381 versus 579 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 versus 1122 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 500
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4400
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Nom | Intel HD Graphics 500 | Intel HD Graphics 4400 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 300 | 524 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 80 | 275 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 911 | 2143 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.525 | 7.844 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 35.665 | 154.696 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.215 | 0.958 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 2.987 | 9.084 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.154 | 8.335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 488 | 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 579 | 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1122 | 3044 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 488 | 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 579 | 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1122 | 3044 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 152 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel HD Graphics 500 | Intel HD Graphics 4400 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 | Generation 7.5 |
| Nom de code | Apollo Lake GT1 | Haswell GT2 |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2015 | 3 September 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1658 | 1421 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 750 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 200 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 144.0 gflops | 46 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Pipelines | 12 | 20 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 9 GTexel / s | 4.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 6 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 392 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / LPDDR4 | |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | 1 |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel HD Graphics 500 avec des autres
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 8500 GT
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 570M
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7100 + nForce 630i
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
AMDFirePro M3900
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIANVS 300
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 560 Ti X2
