Intel UHD Graphics 615 versus Intel HD Graphics 4400
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel UHD Graphics 615 and Intel HD Graphics 4400 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 UHD Graphics 615
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 5 ans 2 mois plus tard
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 25.2 GTexel/s versus 4.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 20% de pipelines plus haut: 24 versus 20
- 8.8x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 403.2 gflops versus 46 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 22 nm
- 4x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 5 Watt versus 20 Watt
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 723 versus 524
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3236 versus 2143
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 18.422 versus 7.844
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 221.42 versus 154.696
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.26 versus 0.958
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 12.354 versus 9.084
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 19.644 versus 8.335
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1256 versus 817
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1720 versus 1381
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1256 versus 817
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1720 versus 1381
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 7 November 2018 versus 3 September 2013 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel/s versus 4.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 24 versus 20 |
| Performance á point flottant | 403.2 gflops versus 46 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 22 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 5 Watt versus 20 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 723 versus 524 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3236 versus 2143 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.422 versus 7.844 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 221.42 versus 154.696 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.26 versus 0.958 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 12.354 versus 9.084 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 19.644 versus 8.335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1256 versus 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1720 versus 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1256 versus 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1720 versus 1381 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 4400
- Environ 17% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 350 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 10% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 1050 MHz
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 275 versus 178
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3044 versus 1772
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3044 versus 1772
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 350 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 1050 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 275 versus 178 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 versus 1772 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 versus 1772 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 615
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4400
| 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 | Intel HD Graphics 4400 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 723 | 524 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 178 | 275 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3236 | 2143 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.422 | 7.844 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 221.42 | 154.696 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.26 | 0.958 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 12.354 | 9.084 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 19.644 | 8.335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1256 | 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1720 | 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1772 | 3044 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1256 | 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1720 | 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1772 | 3044 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 152 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel UHD Graphics 615 | Intel HD Graphics 4400 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Generation 7.5 |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | Haswell GT2 |
| Date de sortie | 7 November 2018 | 3 September 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1417 | 1421 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 403.2 gflops | 46 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 22 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 | 20 |
| Pixel fill rate | 3.150 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel/s | 4.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 5 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 392 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 16 GB | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3L / LPDDR3 | |
| Mémoire partagé | Yes | 1 |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel UHD Graphics 615 avec des autres
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7200 GS
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
NVIDIAQuadro NVS 285
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 1600M
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
AMDFirePro S4000X
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K620M
IntelUHD Graphics 615 vs
NVIDIAGRID M40
