Intel HD Graphics 615 versus AMD Radeon R7 M260
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 615 and AMD Radeon R7 M260 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 615
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 7% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 980 MHz
- Environ 12% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 25.2 GTexel / s versus 22.56 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 16 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 40% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 708 versus 504
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 186 versus 121
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 215.572 versus 145.3
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.238 versus 0.925
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1128 versus 1093
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2409 versus 1704
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1128 versus 1093
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2409 versus 1704
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 30 August 2016 versus 11 June 2014 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 980 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel / s versus 22.56 GTexel / s |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 16 GB versus 4 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 708 versus 504 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 186 versus 121 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 215.572 versus 145.3 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.238 versus 0.925 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1128 versus 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2409 versus 1704 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1128 versus 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2409 versus 1704 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 M260
- 3.1x plus de vitesse du noyau: 940 MHz versus 300 MHz
- 16x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 24
- Environ 79% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 721.9 gflops versus 403.2 gflops
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5119 versus 3041
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.249 versus 12.486
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.992 versus 11.311
- 4.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 77.895 versus 18.292
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1404 versus 1128
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1404 versus 1128
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 940 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 24 |
| Performance á point flottant | 721.9 gflops versus 403.2 gflops |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5119 versus 3041 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.249 versus 12.486 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.992 versus 11.311 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 77.895 versus 18.292 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1404 versus 1128 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1404 versus 1128 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 615
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 M260
| 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 615 | AMD Radeon R7 M260 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 708 | 504 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 186 | 121 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3041 | 5119 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.486 | 14.249 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 215.572 | 145.3 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.238 | 0.925 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 11.311 | 19.992 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 18.292 | 77.895 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1128 | 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1128 | 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2409 | 1704 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1128 | 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1128 | 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2409 | 1704 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel HD Graphics 615 | AMD Radeon R7 M260 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | Topaz |
| Date de sortie | 30 August 2016 | 11 June 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1483 | 1485 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $799 | |
| Prix maintenant | $799 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 1.33 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 940 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 403.2 gflops | 721.9 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel / s | 22.56 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 5 Watt | |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 3,100 million |
| Unités de Compute | 6 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 bit |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3L / LPDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | 0 |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 32 GB/s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1000 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PCIe 3.0 | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Graphiques changeables | ||
| Zero Core | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel HD Graphics 615 avec des autres
IntelHD Graphics 615 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 4000
IntelHD Graphics 615 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 4500
IntelHD Graphics 615 vs
NVIDIAQuadro NVS 320M
IntelHD Graphics 615 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 710
IntelHD Graphics 615 vs
AMDRadeon R7 M260
IntelHD Graphics 615 vs
IntelHD Graphics 5500
