Intel UHD Graphics 620 versus NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel UHD Graphics 620 and NVIDIA Quadro 1000M 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 6 ans 7 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 40 nm
- 3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 45 Watt
- 16x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 32 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 86% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1042 versus 560
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 241 versus 197
- 2.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4592 versus 2131
- 5.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.062 versus 5.218
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 273.504 versus 207.789
- 3.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.777 versus 0.52
- Environ 96% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.939 versus 10.149
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 31.881 versus 23.677
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1397 versus 894
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1397 versus 894
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 versus 13 January 2011 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 45 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 32 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 versus 560 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 versus 197 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 versus 2131 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 versus 5.218 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 versus 207.789 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 versus 0.52 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 versus 10.149 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 versus 23.677 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 versus 894 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 versus 894 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
- 2.3x plus de vitesse du noyau: 700 MHz versus 300 MHz
- 4x plus de pipelines: 96 versus 24
- Environ 86% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1633 versus 878
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2327 versus 2227
- Environ 86% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1633 versus 878
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2327 versus 2227
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 700 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 96 versus 24 |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1633 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2327 versus 2227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1633 versus 878 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2327 versus 2227 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 620
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
| 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 Quadro 1000M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 | 560 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 197 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 | 2131 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 | 5.218 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 | 207.789 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 | 0.52 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 | 10.149 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 | 23.677 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 | 894 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 878 | 1633 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2227 | 2327 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 | 894 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 878 | 1633 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2227 | 2327 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 62 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel UHD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA Quadro 1000M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Fermi |
| Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | GF108 |
| Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 | 13 January 2011 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1380 | 1454 |
| Genre | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $174.95 | |
| Prix maintenant | $99.95 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 8.91 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 96 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 189 million | 585 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 268.8 gflops | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 11.2 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 32 GB | 2 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | LPDDR3 / DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | 0 |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 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
