Intel UHD Graphics 620 versus NVIDIA GeForce 910M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel UHD Graphics 620 and NVIDIA GeForce 910M 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 2 ans 0 mois plus tard
- 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
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1042 versus 588
- 2.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 241 versus 113
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4592 versus 2629
- 4.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.062 versus 6.448
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 273.504 versus 155.993
- 3.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.777 versus 0.574
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.939 versus 12.2
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 31.881 versus 27.733
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1397 versus 1344
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1397 versus 1344
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 versus 18 August 2015 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 33 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 versus 588 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 versus 113 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 versus 2629 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 versus 6.448 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 versus 155.993 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 versus 0.574 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 versus 12.2 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 versus 27.733 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 versus 1344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 versus 1344 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce 910M
- 2.6x plus de vitesse du noyau: 775 MHz versus 300 MHz
- 16x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 24
- 2.9x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2590 versus 878
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3020 versus 2227
- 2.9x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2590 versus 878
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3020 versus 2227
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 775 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 24 |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2590 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3020 versus 2227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2590 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3020 versus 2227 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 620
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 910M
| 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 620 | NVIDIA GeForce 910M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 | 588 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 113 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 | 2629 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 | 6.448 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 | 155.993 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 | 0.574 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 | 12.2 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 | 27.733 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 | 1344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 878 | 2590 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2227 | 3020 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 | 1344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 878 | 2590 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2227 | 3020 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 62 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel UHD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce 910M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Fermi 2.0 |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | GF117 |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 | 18 August 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1380 | 1382 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 775 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 384 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 585 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 297.6 gflops | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 12.4 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 32 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 | 14.4 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| 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
