Intel HD Graphics 500 versus NVIDIA Quadro 4000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 500 and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 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 4 ans 9 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 40 nm
- 23.7x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 6 Watt versus 142 Watt
- 4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 2 GB
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2015 versus 2 November 2010 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 6 Watt versus 142 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 2 GB |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro 4000
- 2.4x plus de vitesse du noyau: 475 MHz versus 200 MHz
- Environ 69% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 15.2 GTexel / s versus 9 GTexel / s
- 21.3x plus de pipelines: 256 versus 12
- 3.4x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 486.4 gflops versus 144.0 gflops
- 4.9x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1476 versus 300
- 4.8x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 382 versus 80
- 5.5x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5013 versus 911
- 3.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.345 versus 3.525
- 8.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 306.122 versus 35.665
- 7.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.552 versus 0.215
- 6.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 20.453 versus 2.987
- 9.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 39.651 versus 4.154
- 4.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2079 versus 488
- 6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3472 versus 579
- 3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3350 versus 1122
- 4.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2079 versus 488
- 6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3472 versus 579
- 3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3350 versus 1122
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 475 MHz versus 200 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.2 GTexel / s versus 9 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 256 versus 12 |
| Performance á point flottant | 486.4 gflops versus 144.0 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1476 versus 300 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 382 versus 80 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5013 versus 911 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.345 versus 3.525 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 306.122 versus 35.665 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.552 versus 0.215 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.453 versus 2.987 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 39.651 versus 4.154 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2079 versus 488 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3472 versus 579 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 versus 1122 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2079 versus 488 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3472 versus 579 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 versus 1122 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 500
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 4000
| 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 | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 300 | 1476 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 80 | 382 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 911 | 5013 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.525 | 13.345 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 35.665 | 306.122 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.215 | 1.552 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 2.987 | 20.453 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.154 | 39.651 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 488 | 2079 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 579 | 3472 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1122 | 3350 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 488 | 2079 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 579 | 3472 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1122 | 3350 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel HD Graphics 500 | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 | Fermi |
| Nom de code | Apollo Lake GT1 | GF100 |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2015 | 2 November 2010 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1658 | 1047 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $1,199 | |
| Prix maintenant | $141.66 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.08 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 750 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 200 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 144.0 gflops | 486.4 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 12 | 256 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 9 GTexel / s | 15.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 6 Watt | 142 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 3,100 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 241 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / LPDDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 89.9 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2808 MHz | |
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
