Intel UHD Graphics 620 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel UHD Graphics 620 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB 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 1 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 16 nm
- 8x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 120 Watt
- 10.7x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 32 GB versus 3 GB
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 versus 18 August 2016 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 16 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 120 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 32 GB versus 3 GB |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB
- 5x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1506 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 49% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1708 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- 48x plus de pipelines: 1152 versus 24
- 9.4x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 9796 versus 1042
- 3.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 772 versus 241
- 7.1x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 32384 versus 4592
- 4.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 115.073 versus 27.062
- 4.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1325.07 versus 273.504
- 4.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 8.057 versus 1.777
- Environ 60% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 31.946 versus 19.939
- 13.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 425.709 versus 31.881
- 7.6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10566 versus 1397
- 4.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3697 versus 878
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3338 versus 2227
- 7.6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10566 versus 1397
- 4.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3697 versus 878
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3338 versus 2227
- 2.5x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 156 versus 62
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1506 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1708 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
| Pipelines | 1152 versus 24 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9796 versus 1042 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 772 versus 241 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32384 versus 4592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 115.073 versus 27.062 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1325.07 versus 273.504 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.057 versus 1.777 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 31.946 versus 19.939 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 425.709 versus 31.881 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10566 versus 1397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3697 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3338 versus 2227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10566 versus 1397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3697 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3338 versus 2227 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 156 versus 62 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 620
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB
| 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 GTX 1060 3 GB |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 | 9796 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 772 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 | 32384 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 | 115.073 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 | 1325.07 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 | 8.057 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 | 31.946 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 | 425.709 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 | 10566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 878 | 3697 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2227 | 3338 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 | 10566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 878 | 3697 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2227 | 3338 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 62 | 156 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel UHD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Pascal |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | GP106 |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 | 18 August 2016 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1380 | 388 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | 1708 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 1506 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 1152 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 4,400 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,935 gflops | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 123.0 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 250 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 32 GB | 3 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | LPDDR3 / DDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 192.2 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 8008 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
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
