Intel UHD Graphics 620 versus NVIDIA GeForce 940M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel UHD Graphics 620 and NVIDIA GeForce 940M 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 5 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
- 16x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 32 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 241 versus 154
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.062 versus 25.98
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 273.504 versus 168.449
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.777 versus 1.307
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 versus 13 March 2015 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 33 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 32 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 versus 154 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 versus 25.98 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 versus 168.449 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 versus 1.307 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce 940M
- 3.6x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1072 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 2% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1176 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- 16x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 24
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1127 versus 1042
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5982 versus 4592
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.837 versus 19.939
- 3.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 101.399 versus 31.881
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2132 versus 1397
- 3.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3065 versus 878
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 versus 2227
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2132 versus 1397
- 3.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3065 versus 878
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 versus 2227
- 8.2x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 506 versus 62
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1072 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1176 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 24 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1127 versus 1042 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5982 versus 4592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.837 versus 19.939 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 101.399 versus 31.881 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2132 versus 1397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3065 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 2227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2132 versus 1397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3065 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 2227 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 506 versus 62 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 620
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 940M
| 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 940M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 | 1127 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 154 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 | 5982 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 | 25.98 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 | 168.449 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 | 1.307 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 | 21.837 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 | 101.399 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 | 2132 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 878 | 3065 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2227 | 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 | 2132 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 878 | 3065 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2227 | 3357 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 62 | 506 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel UHD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce 940M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | GM108 |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 | 13 March 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1380 | 1184 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | 1176 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 1072 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 384 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 1,870 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 903.2 gflops | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 28.22 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 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 | 2 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 | ||
| 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
