NVIDIA GeForce 840M versus AMD Radeon R7 240
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce 840M and AMD Radeon R7 240 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 840M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 44% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1124 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Environ 15% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 17.98 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 20% de pipelines plus haut: 384 versus 320
- Environ 73% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 863.2 gflops versus 499.2 gflops
- Environ 52% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 50 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 74% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 2002 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1096 versus 902
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5771 versus 5331
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 22.848 versus 13.344
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 95.545 versus 60.326
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2085 versus 1688
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2736 versus 2342
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2085 versus 1688
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2736 versus 2342
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 12 March 2014 versus 8 October 2013 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1124 MHz versus 780 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 17.98 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 320 |
| Performance á point flottant | 863.2 gflops versus 499.2 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 50 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2002 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1096 versus 902 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5771 versus 5331 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.848 versus 13.344 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 95.545 versus 60.326 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2085 versus 1688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2736 versus 2342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2085 versus 1688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2736 versus 2342 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 240
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 274 versus 151
- Environ 79% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 290.632 versus 162.594
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.262 versus 1.237
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.59 versus 21.15
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 versus 3191
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 versus 3191
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 274 versus 151 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 versus 162.594 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 versus 1.237 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 versus 21.15 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 versus 3191 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 versus 3191 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 840M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 240
| 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 840M | AMD Radeon R7 240 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1096 | 902 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 151 | 274 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5771 | 5331 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.848 | 13.344 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 162.594 | 290.632 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.237 | 1.262 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.15 | 21.59 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 95.545 | 60.326 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2085 | 1688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2736 | 2342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3191 | 3353 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2085 | 1688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2736 | 2342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3191 | 3353 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 503 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce 840M | AMD Radeon R7 240 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | GM108 | Oland |
| Date de sortie | 12 March 2014 | 8 October 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1235 | 1236 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $69 | |
| Prix maintenant | $49.99 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 24.92 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1124 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 863.2 gflops | 499.2 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 320 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 17.98 GTexel / s | 15.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Stream Processors | 320 | |
| Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
| Longeur | 168 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | N / A | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 16.02 GB / s | 72 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2002 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce 840M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon HD 6370M
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon HD 6550D
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon R7 240
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
IntelUHD Graphics 630
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
IntelUHD Graphics 617
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon 680M
