Intel HD Graphics 520 versus NVIDIA Quadro K600
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 520 and NVIDIA Quadro K600 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 520
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 6 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.7x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 41 Watt
- 32x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 32 GB versus 1 GB
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 864 versus 728
- 2.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3993 versus 1830
- 3.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 21.852 versus 6.367
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 143.083 versus 118.389
- 3.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.243 versus 0.396
- Environ 64% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 12.958 versus 7.921
- 3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 28.182 versus 9.393
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3337 versus 2261
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3337 versus 2261
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2015 versus 1 March 2013 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 41 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 32 GB versus 1 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 864 versus 728 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3993 versus 1830 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 21.852 versus 6.367 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 143.083 versus 118.389 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.243 versus 0.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 12.958 versus 7.921 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 28.182 versus 9.393 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3337 versus 2261 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3337 versus 2261 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K600
- 2.9x plus de vitesse du noyau: 876 MHz versus 300 MHz
- 8x plus de pipelines: 192 versus 24
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 278 versus 209
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1227 versus 951
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1745 versus 1462
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1227 versus 951
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1745 versus 1462
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 876 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 192 versus 24 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 278 versus 209 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1227 versus 951 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1745 versus 1462 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1227 versus 951 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1745 versus 1462 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 520
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K600
| 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 520 | NVIDIA Quadro K600 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 864 | 728 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 209 | 278 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3993 | 1830 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 21.852 | 6.367 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 143.083 | 118.389 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.243 | 0.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 12.958 | 7.921 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 28.182 | 9.393 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 951 | 1227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1462 | 1745 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3337 | 2261 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 951 | 1227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1462 | 1745 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3337 | 2261 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 326 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel HD Graphics 520 | NVIDIA Quadro K600 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 | Kepler |
| Nom de code | Skylake GT2 | GK107 |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2015 | 1 March 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1381 | 1367 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | |
| Prix maintenant | $78.99 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 11.66 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 876 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 192 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 41 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 1,270 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 336.4 gflops | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 14.02 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 160 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 32 GB | 1 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.51 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1782 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel HD Graphics 520 avec des autres
IntelHD Graphics 520 vs
ATIMobility Radeon 7500
IntelHD Graphics 520 vs
IntelHD Graphics
IntelHD Graphics 520 vs
AMDRadeon R7 M340
IntelHD Graphics 520 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 910M
IntelHD Graphics 520 vs
IntelUHD Graphics 620
IntelHD Graphics 520 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8370D IGP
