Intel UHD Graphics 615 versus AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel UHD Graphics 615 and AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le Intel UHD Graphics 615
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 5 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 35% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 780 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 25.2 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
- 10x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 5 Watt versus 50 Watt
- 8x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 16 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 736 versus 544
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 18.422 versus 13.569
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 221.42 versus 162.886
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.277 versus 1.009
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1256 versus 1119
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1720 versus 1284
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1256 versus 1119
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1720 versus 1284
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 7 November 2018 versus 1 November 2013 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 780 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel/s versus 15.6 GTexel / s |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 5 Watt versus 50 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 16 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 736 versus 544 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.422 versus 13.569 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 221.42 versus 162.886 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.277 versus 1.009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1256 versus 1119 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1720 versus 1284 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1256 versus 1119 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1720 versus 1284 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
- 2.4x plus de vitesse du noyau: 730 MHz versus 300 MHz
- 13.3x plus de pipelines: 320 versus 24
- Environ 24% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 499.2 gflops versus 403.2 gflops
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 193 versus 183
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4941 versus 3224
- Environ 60% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.668 versus 12.269
- 4.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 77.819 versus 18.909
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2264 versus 1772
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2264 versus 1772
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 320 versus 24 |
| Performance á point flottant | 499.2 gflops versus 403.2 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 193 versus 183 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4941 versus 3224 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.668 versus 12.269 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 77.819 versus 18.909 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2264 versus 1772 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2264 versus 1772 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 615
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
| 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 UHD Graphics 615 | AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 736 | 544 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 183 | 193 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3224 | 4941 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.422 | 13.569 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 221.42 | 162.886 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.277 | 1.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 12.269 | 19.668 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 18.909 | 77.819 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1256 | 1119 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1720 | 1284 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1772 | 2264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1256 | 1119 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1720 | 1284 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1772 | 2264 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel UHD Graphics 615 | AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | Oland |
| Date de sortie | 7 November 2018 | 1 November 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1412 | 1415 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 403.2 gflops | 499.2 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 100.8 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 806.4 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 403.2 GFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 24 | 320 |
| Pixel fill rate | 3.150 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel/s | 15.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 5 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 1,040 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Longeur | 168 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3L / LPDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | Yes | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel UHD Graphics 615 avec des autres
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
ATIRadeon 7200
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9600 GSO
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
AMDRadeon R5 240 OEM
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
AMDRadeon R7 M265
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
AMDRadeon R6 Graphics
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
AMDRadeon Vega 7
