Intel Arc A370M versus AMD Radeon R9 290
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel Arc A370M and AMD Radeon R9 290 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: 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), PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le Intel Arc A370M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 8 ans 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 64% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1550 MHz versus 947 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 131.2 GTexel/s versus 151.5 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 6 nm versus 28 nm
- 7.9x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 35 Watt versus 275 Watt
- Environ 87% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 167.171 versus 89.325
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1470.844 versus 1366.314
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 10.937 versus 10.034
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 30 Mar 2022 versus 5 November 2013 |
Vitesse du noyau | 1550 MHz versus 947 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 131.2 GTexel/s versus 151.5 GTexel / s |
Processus de fabrication | 6 nm versus 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt versus 275 Watt |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 167.171 versus 89.325 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1470.844 versus 1366.314 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.937 versus 10.034 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 290
- 2.5x plus de pipelines: 2560 versus 1024
- 2.9x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5000 MHz versus 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 98.765 versus 71.258
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 540.645 versus 482.549
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 775 versus 724
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 8293 versus 5115
- 3.4x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 102277 versus 29668
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3683 versus 3443
Caractéristiques | |
Pipelines | 2560 versus 1024 |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5000 MHz versus 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 98.765 versus 71.258 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 540.645 versus 482.549 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 775 versus 724 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 8293 versus 5115 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 102277 versus 29668 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3683 versus 3443 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel Arc A370M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 290
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) |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score |
|
|
Nom | Intel Arc A370M | AMD Radeon R9 290 |
---|---|---|
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 167.171 | 89.325 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1470.844 | 1366.314 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.937 | 10.034 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 71.258 | 98.765 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 482.549 | 540.645 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 724 | 775 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5115 | 8293 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 29668 | 102277 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3443 | 3683 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6300 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3711 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6300 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3711 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
Intel Arc A370M | AMD Radeon R9 290 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Generation 12.7 | GCN 2.0 |
Nom de code | DG2-128 | Hawaii |
Date de sortie | 30 Mar 2022 | 5 November 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 361 | 360 |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $399 | |
Genre | Desktop | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 2050 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1550 MHz | 947 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 6 nm | 28 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 1,050 GFLOPS (1:4) | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 4.198 TFLOPS | |
Pipelines | 1024 | 2560 |
Pixel fill rate | 65.60 GPixel/s | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 131.2 GTexel/s | 151.5 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 275 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 7200 million | 6,200 million |
Performance á point flottant | 4,849 gflops | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Facteur de forme | IGP | |
Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Longeur | 275 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 |
OpenCL | 3.0 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Shader Model | 6.6 | |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 112.0 GB/s | 320.0 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 bit | 512 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | 5000 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |