Intel UHD Graphics 620 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel UHD Graphics 620 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 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
- 5x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 8x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 32 GB versus 4 GB
| 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 75 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 32 GB versus 4 GB |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
- 3.7x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1096 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 2% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1176 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- 26.7x plus de pipelines: 640 versus 24
- 3.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3366 versus 1042
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 245 versus 241
- 2.4x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10985 versus 4592
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 54.294 versus 27.062
- 2.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.325 versus 273.504
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.692 versus 1.777
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.794 versus 19.939
- 5.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 174.513 versus 31.881
- 3.8x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5264 versus 1397
- 4.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 versus 878
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 versus 2227
- 3.8x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5264 versus 1397
- 4.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 versus 878
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 versus 2227
- 19.9x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1231 versus 62
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1096 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1176 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
| Pipelines | 640 versus 24 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3366 versus 1042 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 245 versus 241 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10985 versus 4592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.294 versus 27.062 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.325 versus 273.504 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.692 versus 1.777 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.794 versus 19.939 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 174.513 versus 31.881 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5264 versus 1397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 2227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5264 versus 1397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 2227 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1231 versus 62 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 620
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
| 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 960M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 | 3366 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 245 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 | 10985 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 | 54.294 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 | 795.325 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 | 3.692 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 | 51.794 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 | 174.513 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 | 5264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 878 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2227 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 | 5264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 878 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2227 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 62 | 1231 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel UHD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 | 13 March 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1380 | 735 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | 1176 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 1096 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 640 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 1,870 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 640 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,505 gflops | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 47.04 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | 1 | |
| HDMI | ||
| Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | 1 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | 4 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | LPDDR3 / DDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | 0 |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2500 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
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
