Intel UHD Graphics 620 versus AMD Radeon R9 270X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel UHD Graphics 620 and AMD Radeon R9 270X 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 620
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 10% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 1050 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 12x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 180 Watt
- 16x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 32 GB versus 2 GB
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 versus 8 October 2013 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 1050 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 180 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 32 GB versus 2 GB |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 270X
- 53.3x plus de pipelines: 1280 versus 24
- 4.7x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4869 versus 1042
- 2.5x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 613 versus 241
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 63.87 versus 27.062
- 4.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.72 versus 273.504
- 3.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.354 versus 1.777
- 4.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.21 versus 19.939
- 9.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 315.412 versus 31.881
- 5.8x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 versus 1397
- 4.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3706 versus 878
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3350 versus 2227
- 5.8x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 versus 1397
- 4.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3706 versus 878
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3350 versus 2227
- 28.6x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1772 versus 62
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 1280 versus 24 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4869 versus 1042 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 613 versus 241 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.87 versus 27.062 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 versus 273.504 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.354 versus 1.777 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 versus 19.939 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 315.412 versus 31.881 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 versus 1397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 versus 2227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 versus 1397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 versus 2227 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1772 versus 62 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 620
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 270X
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | Intel UHD Graphics 620 | AMD Radeon R9 270X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 | 4869 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 613 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 | 63.87 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 | 1314.72 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 | 6.354 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 | 85.21 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 | 315.412 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 | 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 878 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2227 | 3350 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 | 8068 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 878 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2227 | 3350 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 62 | 1772 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel UHD Graphics 620 | AMD Radeon R9 270X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | Curacao |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 | 8 October 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1380 | 440 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | |
| Prix maintenant | $399 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 16.05 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 1280 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 2,800 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,688 gflops | |
| Stream Processors | 1280 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 84 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 2 x 6-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 32 GB | 2 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | LPDDR3 / DDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | 0 |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 179.2 GB/s | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel UHD Graphics 620 avec des autres
IntelUHD Graphics 620 vs
ATIMobility Radeon 7500
IntelUHD Graphics 620 vs
ATIAll-In-Wonder 9000 PRO
IntelUHD Graphics 620 vs
AMDRadeon R7 M340
IntelUHD Graphics 620 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 910M
IntelUHD Graphics 620 vs
IntelHD Graphics 520
IntelUHD Graphics 620 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8370D IGP
