NVIDIA GeForce 830M versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce 830M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce 830M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 5 mois plus tard
- 2.7x plus de pipelines: 256 versus 96
- 2.5x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 588.8 gflops versus 240.0 gflops
- 2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1006 versus 497
- Environ 89% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4213 versus 2229
- Environ 73% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1729 versus 999
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3589 versus 2333
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 versus 3257
- Environ 73% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1729 versus 999
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3589 versus 2333
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 versus 3257
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 12 March 2014 versus 1 October 2012 |
Pipelines | 256 versus 96 |
Performance á point flottant | 588.8 gflops versus 240.0 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1006 versus 497 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4213 versus 2229 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1729 versus 999 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3589 versus 2333 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 versus 3257 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1729 versus 999 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3589 versus 2333 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 versus 3257 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M
- 2.2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 33 Watt
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 142 versus 137
Caractéristiques | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 33 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 142 versus 137 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 830M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
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 830M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1006 | 497 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 137 | 142 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4213 | 2229 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 16.955 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 156.544 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.013 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 17.81 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 67.443 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1729 | 999 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3589 | 2333 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3257 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1729 | 999 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3589 | 2333 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3257 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce 830M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi 2.0 |
Nom de code | GM108 | GF117 |
Date de sortie | 12 March 2014 | 1 October 2012 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1213 | 1216 |
Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1082 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 588.8 gflops | 240.0 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 256 | 96 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.4 GTexel / s | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 15 Watt |
Noyaux CUDA | 96 | |
Compte de transistor | 585 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
CUDA | ||
GameWorks | ||
GPU Boost | ||
Optimus | ||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 |