Intel HD Graphics 630 versus NVIDIA GRID K520
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 630 and NVIDIA GRID K520 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire. 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 3 ans 1 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 15x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 225 Watt
- 8x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 64 GB versus 2x 4 GB
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 267 versus 160
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.948 versus 20.654
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 30 August 2016 versus 23 July 2013 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 225 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 64 GB versus 2x 4 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 267 versus 160 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.948 versus 20.654 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GRID K520
- 2.1x plus de vitesse du noyau: 745 MHz versus 350 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 2x 102.0 GTexel / s billion / sec versus 27.6 GTexel / s
- 128x plus de pipelines: 2x 1536 versus 24
- 11.1x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2x 2,448 gflops versus 441.6 gflops
- 3.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3516 versus 1108
- 2.4x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10864 versus 4615
- 3.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1063.784 versus 312.246
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.244 versus 1.795
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 42.277 versus 20.404
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 76.158 versus 32.567
- 3.6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6782 versus 1859
- Environ 91% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3713 versus 1945
- 3.6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6782 versus 1859
- Environ 91% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3713 versus 1945
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 745 MHz versus 350 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 2x 102.0 GTexel / s billion / sec versus 27.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2x 1536 versus 24 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2x 2,448 gflops versus 441.6 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3516 versus 1108 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10864 versus 4615 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1063.784 versus 312.246 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.244 versus 1.795 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 42.277 versus 20.404 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 76.158 versus 32.567 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6782 versus 1859 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3713 versus 1945 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 versus 3344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6782 versus 1859 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3713 versus 1945 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 versus 3344 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 630
GPU 2: NVIDIA GRID K520
| 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 | NVIDIA GRID K520 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1108 | 3516 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 267 | 160 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4615 | 10864 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.948 | 20.654 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.246 | 1063.784 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.795 | 3.244 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.404 | 42.277 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 32.567 | 76.158 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1859 | 6782 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1945 | 3713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3344 | 3354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1859 | 6782 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1945 | 3713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3344 | 3354 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 388 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel HD Graphics 630 | NVIDIA GRID K520 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Kepler |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | GK104 |
| Date de sortie | 30 August 2016 | 23 July 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1235 | 760 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $3,599 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 350 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 441.6 gflops | 2x 2,448 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 2x 1536 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 27.6 GTexel / s | 2x 102.0 GTexel / s billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 3,540 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 8-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 64 GB | 2x 4 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 2x 256 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / LPDDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 2x 160.0 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5000 MHz | |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel HD Graphics 630 avec des autres
IntelHD Graphics 630 vs
ATIAll-In-Wonder Radeon 8500DV
IntelHD Graphics 630 vs
ATIRadeon 9200 SE
IntelHD Graphics 630 vs
ATIRadeon 9200 LE
IntelHD Graphics 630 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6550D
IntelHD Graphics 630 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 705M
IntelHD Graphics 630 vs
AMDRadeon R7 240
