Intel UHD Graphics 615 versus AMD Radeon R7 M265
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel UHD Graphics 615 and AMD Radeon R7 M265 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 4 ans 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 27% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 825 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 25.2 GTexel/s versus 19.8 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 16 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 734 versus 546
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 182 versus 138
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 18.422 versus 12.031
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1720 versus 1264
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1720 versus 1264
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 7 November 2018 versus 20 May 2014 |
Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 825 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel/s versus 19.8 GTexel / s |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
Taille de mémore maximale | 16 GB versus 4 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 734 versus 546 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 182 versus 138 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.422 versus 12.031 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1720 versus 1264 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1720 versus 1264 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 M265
- 3x plus de vitesse du noyau: 900 MHz versus 300 MHz
- 16x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 24
- Environ 57% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 633.6 gflops versus 403.2 gflops
- Environ 74% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5587 versus 3220
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 282.111 versus 221.42
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.455 versus 1.277
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.704 versus 12.269
- 3.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 68.392 versus 18.909
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1551 versus 1256
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2424 versus 1772
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1551 versus 1256
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2424 versus 1772
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 900 MHz versus 300 MHz |
Pipelines | 384 versus 24 |
Performance á point flottant | 633.6 gflops versus 403.2 gflops |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5587 versus 3220 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 282.111 versus 221.42 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.455 versus 1.277 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.704 versus 12.269 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 68.392 versus 18.909 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1551 versus 1256 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2424 versus 1772 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1551 versus 1256 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2424 versus 1772 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 615
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 M265
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 R7 M265 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 734 | 546 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 182 | 138 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3220 | 5587 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.422 | 12.031 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 221.42 | 282.111 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.277 | 1.455 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 12.269 | 21.704 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 18.909 | 68.392 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1256 | 1551 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1720 | 1264 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1772 | 2424 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1256 | 1551 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1720 | 1264 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1772 | 2424 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
Intel UHD Graphics 615 | AMD Radeon R7 M265 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Generation 9.5 | GCN 3.0 |
Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | Topaz |
Date de sortie | 7 November 2018 | 20 May 2014 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1411 | 1413 |
Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | 825 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 900 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 403.2 gflops | 633.6 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 | 384 |
Pixel fill rate | 3.150 GPixel/s | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel/s | 19.8 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 5 Watt | |
Compte de transistor | 189 million | 3,100 million |
Unités de Compute | 6 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 11 |
OpenCL | 2.1 | Not Listed |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Vulkan | ||
Mantle | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 16 GB | 4 GB |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 bit |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3L / LPDDR3 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | Yes | 0 |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 32 GB/s | |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1000 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
Quick Sync | ||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PCIe 3.0 | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
Zero Core | ||
ZeroCore |