Intel HD Graphics 620 versus AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 620 and AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT 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 620
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 9 mois plus tard
- Environ 8% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 975 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 12.3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 185 Watt
- 16x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 32 GB versus 2 GB
| Date de sortie | 30 August 2016 versus 19 November 2012 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 975 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 185 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 32 GB versus 2 GB |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT
- 3.1x plus de vitesse du noyau: 925 MHz versus 300 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 93.6 GTexel / s versus 25.2 GTexel / s
- 64x plus de pipelines: 1536 versus 24
- 7.4x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,995 gflops versus 403.2 gflops
- 4.8x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4470 versus 922
- 3.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 661 versus 216
- 2.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 65.399 versus 24.275
- 5.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1230.47 versus 227.879
- 4.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.371 versus 1.508
- 5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 78.519 versus 15.582
- 11.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 345.793 versus 30.288
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2810 versus 1404
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3264 versus 1733
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2810 versus 1404
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3264 versus 1733
- 5.1x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1745 versus 343
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 925 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 93.6 GTexel / s versus 25.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1536 versus 24 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,995 gflops versus 403.2 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4470 versus 922 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 661 versus 216 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.399 versus 24.275 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1230.47 versus 227.879 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.371 versus 1.508 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 78.519 versus 15.582 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 345.793 versus 30.288 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2810 versus 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3264 versus 1733 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 versus 3340 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2810 versus 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3264 versus 1733 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 versus 3340 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1745 versus 343 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 620
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | Intel HD Graphics 620 | AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 922 | 4470 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 216 | 661 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4178 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 24.275 | 65.399 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 227.879 | 1230.47 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.508 | 6.371 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.582 | 78.519 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 30.288 | 345.793 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1404 | 2810 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1733 | 3264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3340 | 3354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1404 | 2810 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1733 | 3264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 | 3354 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 343 | 1745 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel HD Graphics 620 | AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | Tahiti |
| Date de sortie | 30 August 2016 | 19 November 2012 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1334 | 521 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $270 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | 975 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 403.2 gflops | 2,995 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 1536 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel / s | 93.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 185 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 4,313 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 2x 6-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 32 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 | 192.0 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6000 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel HD Graphics 620 avec des autres
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
NVIDIAGeForce3 Ti500
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
ATIMobility Radeon X1300
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 2400
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8570D
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8450G
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8550 OEM
