Intel HD Graphics 630 versus AMD Radeon R7 240
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 630 and AMD Radeon R7 240 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 630
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 47% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Environ 77% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 27.6 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 3.3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 50 Watt
- 32x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 64 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1111 versus 898
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.948 versus 13.344
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 312.246 versus 290.632
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.795 versus 1.262
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1859 versus 1688
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1859 versus 1688
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 30 August 2016 versus 8 October 2013 |
Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 780 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 27.6 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 50 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 64 GB versus 2 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1111 versus 898 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.948 versus 13.344 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.246 versus 290.632 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.795 versus 1.262 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1859 versus 1688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1859 versus 1688 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 240
- 13.3x plus de pipelines: 320 versus 24
- Environ 13% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 499.2 gflops versus 441.6 gflops
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 272 versus 268
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5292 versus 4582
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.59 versus 20.404
- Environ 85% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 60.326 versus 32.567
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2342 versus 1945
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2342 versus 1945
Caractéristiques | |
Pipelines | 320 versus 24 |
Performance á point flottant | 499.2 gflops versus 441.6 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 272 versus 268 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5292 versus 4582 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 versus 20.404 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 versus 32.567 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 versus 1945 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 versus 3344 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 versus 1945 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 versus 3344 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 630
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 240
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 630 | AMD Radeon R7 240 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1111 | 898 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 268 | 272 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4582 | 5292 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.948 | 13.344 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.246 | 290.632 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.795 | 1.262 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.404 | 21.59 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 32.567 | 60.326 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1859 | 1688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1945 | 2342 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3344 | 3353 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1859 | 1688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1945 | 2342 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3344 | 3353 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 388 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
Intel HD Graphics 630 | AMD Radeon R7 240 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Generation 9.5 | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | Oland |
Date de sortie | 30 August 2016 | 8 October 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1242 | 1245 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $69 | |
Prix maintenant | $49.99 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 24.92 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | 780 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 350 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 441.6 gflops | 499.2 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 24 | 320 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 27.6 GTexel / s | 15.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 189 million | 1,040 million |
Stream Processors | 320 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Longeur | 168 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | N / A | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 64 GB | 2 GB |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / LPDDR4 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 72 GB/s | |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1150 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync |