NVIDIA GeForce 940M versus AMD FirePro W2100
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce 940M and AMD FirePro W2100 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 940M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 7 mois plus tard
- Environ 70% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1072 MHz versus 630 MHz
- Environ 73% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1176 MHz versus 680 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 28.22 GTexel / s versus 13.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 20% de pipelines plus haut: 384 versus 320
- 2.1x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 903.2 gflops versus 435.2 gflops
- 12.1x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 400 Watt
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1127 versus 859
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5965 versus 3710
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 25.98 versus 10.438
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.307 versus 0.991
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.837 versus 19.794
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 101.399 versus 50.338
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2132 versus 1494
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3065 versus 2329
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2132 versus 1494
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3065 versus 2329
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 versus 12 August 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1072 MHz versus 630 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1176 MHz versus 680 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 28.22 GTexel / s versus 13.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 320 |
| Performance á point flottant | 903.2 gflops versus 435.2 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 400 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1127 versus 859 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5965 versus 3710 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.98 versus 10.438 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.307 versus 0.991 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.837 versus 19.794 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 101.399 versus 50.338 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2132 versus 1494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3065 versus 2329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 3346 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2132 versus 1494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3065 versus 2329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 3346 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro W2100
- 2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 315 versus 155
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 289.646 versus 168.449
- 2.1x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1058 versus 506
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 315 versus 155 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 289.646 versus 168.449 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1058 versus 506 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 940M
GPU 2: AMD FirePro W2100
| 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 940M | AMD FirePro W2100 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1127 | 859 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 155 | 315 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5965 | 3710 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.98 | 10.438 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 168.449 | 289.646 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.307 | 0.991 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.837 | 19.794 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 101.399 | 50.338 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2132 | 1494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3065 | 2329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3346 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2132 | 1494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3065 | 2329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3346 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 506 | 1058 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce 940M | AMD FirePro W2100 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | GM108 | Oland |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 | 12 August 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1211 | 1212 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1176 MHz | 680 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1072 MHz | 630 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 903.2 gflops | 435.2 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 320 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 28.22 GTexel / s | 13.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 400 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 1,040 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DisplayPort |
| Compte DisplayPort | 2 | |
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
| Facteur de forme | Low Profile / Half Length | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | 28.8 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | n / a |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| Powerplay | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce 940M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 745A
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 830M
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
AMDFirePro W2100
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 930M
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
IntelHD Graphics P530
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
AMDRadeon R5 430 OEM
