Intel UHD Graphics 620 versus NVIDIA GeForce 840M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel UHD Graphics 620 and NVIDIA GeForce 840M 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 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 2% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 1124 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 33 Watt
- 8x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 32 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 60% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 241 versus 151
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.062 versus 22.848
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 273.504 versus 162.594
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.777 versus 1.237
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 versus 12 March 2014 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 1124 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 33 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 32 GB versus 4 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 versus 151 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 versus 22.848 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 versus 162.594 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 versus 1.237 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce 840M
- 3.4x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1029 MHz versus 300 MHz
- 16x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 24
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1096 versus 1042
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5771 versus 4592
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.15 versus 19.939
- 3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 95.545 versus 31.881
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2085 versus 1397
- 3.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2736 versus 878
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3191 versus 2227
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2085 versus 1397
- 3.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2736 versus 878
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3191 versus 2227
- 8.1x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 503 versus 62
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 24 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1096 versus 1042 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5771 versus 4592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.15 versus 19.939 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 95.545 versus 31.881 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2085 versus 1397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2736 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3191 versus 2227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2085 versus 1397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2736 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3191 versus 2227 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 503 versus 62 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 620
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 840M
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | Intel UHD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 | 1096 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 151 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 | 5771 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 | 22.848 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 | 162.594 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 | 1.237 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 | 21.15 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 | 95.545 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 | 2085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 878 | 2736 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2227 | 3191 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 | 2085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 878 | 2736 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2227 | 3191 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 62 | 503 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel UHD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | GM108 |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 | 12 March 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1380 | 1235 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 1029 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 384 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | |
| Performance á point flottant | 863.2 gflops | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 17.98 GTexel / s | |
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 | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 32 GB | 4 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | LPDDR3 / DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | 0 |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 16.02 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2002 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
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
