NVIDIA GeForce 840M versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce 840M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M 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 1 ans 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 23% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1029 MHz versus 835 MHz
- Environ 18% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1124 MHz versus 950 MHz
- Environ 18% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 863.2 gflops versus 729.6 gflops
- Environ 52% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 50 Watt
- 4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 1 GB
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5630 versus 3984
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 22.848 versus 10.837
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.237 versus 1.098
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 95.545 versus 33.754
- Environ 91% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2085 versus 1094
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2736 versus 2253
- Environ 91% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2085 versus 1094
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2736 versus 2253
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 503 versus 475
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 12 March 2014 versus 22 March 2012 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz versus 835 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1124 MHz versus 950 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 863.2 gflops versus 729.6 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 50 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 1 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2002 MHz versus 2000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5630 versus 3984 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.848 versus 10.837 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.237 versus 1.098 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 95.545 versus 33.754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2085 versus 1094 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2736 versus 2253 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3191 versus 3176 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2085 versus 1094 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2736 versus 2253 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3191 versus 3176 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 503 versus 475 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M
- Environ 69% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 30.4 billion / sec versus 17.98 GTexel / s
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1434 versus 1088
- Environ 79% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 266 versus 149
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 405.086 versus 162.594
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.798 versus 21.15
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 30.4 billion / sec versus 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1434 versus 1088 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 266 versus 149 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 405.086 versus 162.594 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.798 versus 21.15 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 840M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | NVIDIA GeForce 840M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1088 | 1434 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 149 | 266 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5630 | 3984 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.848 | 10.837 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 162.594 | 405.086 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.237 | 1.098 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.15 | 21.798 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 95.545 | 33.754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2085 | 1094 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2736 | 2253 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3191 | 3176 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2085 | 1094 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2736 | 2253 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3191 | 3176 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 503 | 475 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce 840M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GM108 | GK107 |
| Date de sortie | 12 March 2014 | 22 March 2012 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1268 | 1271 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1124 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz | 835 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 863.2 gflops | 729.6 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 17.98 GTexel / s | 30.4 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Noyaux CUDA | 384 | |
| Compte de transistor | 1,270 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, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | large |
| Options SLI | 2-way | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 16.02 GB / s | 64.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2002 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| FXAA | ||
| SLI | ||
| TXAA | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce 840M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 660M
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8650G
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon R5 235 OEM
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon R7 M260DX
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon R8 M365DX
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
IntelHD Graphics 530
