NVIDIA GeForce 800M versus Intel HD Graphics 4000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce 800M and Intel HD Graphics 4000 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 - 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), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce 800M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 14% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 738 MHz versus 650 MHz
- Environ 41% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 5.904 GTexel / s versus 4.2 GTexel / s
- 3x plus de pipelines: 48 versus 16
- 4.2x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 141.7 gflops versus 33.6 gflops
- 3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 45 Watt
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 457 versus 346
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 203 versus 192
- 2.4x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 1303 versus 539
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 15.218 versus 12.009
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 17 March 2014 versus 14 May 2012 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 738 MHz versus 650 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 5.904 GTexel / s versus 4.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 48 versus 16 |
| Performance á point flottant | 141.7 gflops versus 33.6 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 45 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 457 versus 346 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 203 versus 192 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1303 versus 539 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 15.218 versus 12.009 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 4000
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.712 versus 4.91
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 155.638 versus 109.13
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 7.36 versus 7.249
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 754 versus 703
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1492 versus 1123
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2392 versus 1601
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 754 versus 703
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1492 versus 1123
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2392 versus 1601
| Caractéristiques | |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 28 nm |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.712 versus 4.91 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 155.638 versus 109.13 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 7.36 versus 7.249 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 754 versus 703 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1492 versus 1123 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 versus 1601 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 754 versus 703 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1492 versus 1123 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 versus 1601 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 800M
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4000
| 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 - 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 | NVIDIA GeForce 800M | Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 457 | 346 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 203 | 192 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1303 | 539 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4.91 | 8.712 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 109.13 | 155.638 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 7.249 | 7.36 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 15.218 | 12.009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 703 | 754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1123 | 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1601 | 2392 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 703 | 754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1123 | 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1601 | 2392 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.931 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce 800M | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Generation 7.0 |
| Nom de code | GF117 | Ivy Bridge GT2 |
| Date de sortie | 17 March 2014 | 14 May 2012 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1503 | 1506 |
| Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 738 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 141.7 gflops | 33.6 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 22 nm |
| Pipelines | 48 | 16 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 5.904 GTexel / s | 4.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 585 million | 1,200 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 11.1 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.0 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 1 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce 800M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce 800M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 430
NVIDIAGeForce 800M vs
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M
NVIDIAGeForce 800M vs
IntelHD Graphics 4000
NVIDIAGeForce 800M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 620M
NVIDIAGeForce 800M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition
NVIDIAGeForce 800M vs
IntelHD Graphics 510
