Intel UHD Graphics 630 versus AMD Radeon R9 M375
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel UHD Graphics 630 and AMD Radeon R9 M375 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 630
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 18% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1200 MHz versus 1015 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1243 versus 970
- Environ 86% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 301 versus 162
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 340.911 versus 272.547
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3309 versus 2112
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3309 versus 2112
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 versus 5 May 2015 |
Vitesse augmenté | 1200 MHz versus 1015 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1243 versus 970 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 301 versus 162 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 340.911 versus 272.547 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3309 versus 2112 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3309 versus 2112 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 M375
- 2.9x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1000 MHz versus 350 MHz
- Environ 41% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 40.6 GTexel / s versus 28.8 GTexel / s
- 26.7x plus de pipelines: 640 versus 24
- 2.8x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,299 gflops versus 460.8 gflops
- 2.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10130 versus 4641
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 29.048 versus 27.491
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.024 versus 1.785
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.994 versus 20.414
- 4.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 142.872 versus 29.514
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2227 versus 1870
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1850 versus 1596
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2227 versus 1870
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1850 versus 1596
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz versus 350 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 40.6 GTexel / s versus 28.8 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 640 versus 24 |
Performance á point flottant | 1,299 gflops versus 460.8 gflops |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10130 versus 4641 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 29.048 versus 27.491 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.024 versus 1.785 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.994 versus 20.414 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 142.872 versus 29.514 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2227 versus 1870 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1850 versus 1596 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2227 versus 1870 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1850 versus 1596 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M375
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 630 | AMD Radeon R9 M375 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1243 | 970 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 301 | 162 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4641 | 10130 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.491 | 29.048 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 340.911 | 272.547 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.785 | 2.024 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.414 | 35.994 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 29.514 | 142.872 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1870 | 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1596 | 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3309 | 2112 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1870 | 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1596 | 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3309 | 2112 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 420 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
Intel UHD Graphics 630 | AMD Radeon R9 M375 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Generation 9.5 | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | Coffee Lake GT2 | Tropo |
Date de sortie | 1 September 2017 | 5 May 2015 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1240 | 1243 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1200 MHz | 1015 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 350 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 460.8 gflops | 1,299 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 24 | 640 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 28.8 GTexel / s | 40.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | |
Compte de transistor | 189 million | 1,500 million |
Unités de Compute | 10 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Eyefinity | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 bit |
Mémoire partagé | 1 | 0 |
RAM maximale | 4 GB | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1100 MHz | |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
Quick Sync | ||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
DualGraphics | ||
Enduro | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
ZeroCore |