NVIDIA GeForce 820M versus AMD Radeon R7 M260
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce 820M and AMD Radeon R7 M260 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 NVIDIA GeForce 820M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 9 mois plus tard
- Environ 80% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1802 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 161.305 versus 145.3
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1447 versus 1093
- Environ 97% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3349 versus 1704
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1447 versus 1093
- Environ 97% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3349 versus 1704
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 21 March 2015 versus 11 June 2014 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1802 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 161.305 versus 145.3 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1447 versus 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 versus 1704 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1447 versus 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 versus 1704 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 M260
- Environ 16% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 940 MHz versus 810 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 22.56 GTexel / s versus 10 GTexel / s
- 4x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 96
- 3x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 721.9 gflops versus 240.0 gflops
- 4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 1 GB
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 517 versus 490
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 125 versus 114
- Environ 84% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5125 versus 2789
- Environ 84% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.249 versus 7.765
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.925 versus 0.686
- Environ 40% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.992 versus 14.257
- 3.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 77.895 versus 22.768
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1404 versus 1195
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1404 versus 1195
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 940 MHz versus 810 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 22.56 GTexel / s versus 10 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 96 |
| Performance á point flottant | 721.9 gflops versus 240.0 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 1 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 517 versus 490 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 125 versus 114 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5125 versus 2789 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.249 versus 7.765 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.925 versus 0.686 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.992 versus 14.257 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 77.895 versus 22.768 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1404 versus 1195 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1404 versus 1195 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 820M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 M260
| 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 | NVIDIA GeForce 820M | AMD Radeon R7 M260 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 490 | 517 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 114 | 125 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2789 | 5125 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.765 | 14.249 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 161.305 | 145.3 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.686 | 0.925 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 14.257 | 19.992 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 22.768 | 77.895 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1195 | 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1447 | 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 | 1704 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1195 | 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1447 | 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 | 1704 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 847 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce 820M | AMD Radeon R7 M260 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | GK107 | Topaz |
| Date de sortie | 21 March 2015 | 11 June 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1444 | 1479 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $799 | |
| Prix maintenant | $799 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 1.33 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 810 MHz | 940 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 240.0 gflops | 721.9 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 96 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 10 GTexel / s | 22.56 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | |
| Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | 3,100 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 980 MHz | |
| Unités de Compute | 6 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | 32 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1802 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PCIe 3.0 | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Graphiques changeables | ||
| Zero Core | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce 820M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 8300
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
NVIDIAQuadro NVS 450
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 435M
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K1100M
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 750M Mac Edition
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
AMDRadeon R5 M230
