NVIDIA GeForce 940MX versus AMD Radeon R7 250
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce 940MX and AMD Radeon R7 250 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 940MX
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 8 mois plus tard
- Environ 6% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 23.83 GTexel / s versus 22.4 GTexel / s
- Environ 6% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 762.6 gflops versus 716.8 gflops
- 3.3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 23 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- 4.4x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5012 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1519 versus 1055
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 28.91 versus 20.161
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 312.94 versus 304.279
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.83 versus 1.655
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 103.937 versus 96.934
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2486 versus 2179
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3587 versus 3170
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2486 versus 2179
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3587 versus 3170
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 28 June 2016 versus 8 October 2013 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 23.83 GTexel / s versus 22.4 GTexel / s |
Performance á point flottant | 762.6 gflops versus 716.8 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 23 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1519 versus 1055 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 28.91 versus 20.161 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.94 versus 304.279 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.83 versus 1.655 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 103.937 versus 96.934 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2486 versus 2179 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3587 versus 3170 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 3356 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2486 versus 2179 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3587 versus 3170 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 3356 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 250
- Environ 6% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 993 MHz
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 284 versus 172
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 7533 versus 6339
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.046 versus 27.833
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 993 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 284 versus 172 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7533 versus 6339 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.046 versus 27.833 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 940MX
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 250
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 940MX | AMD Radeon R7 250 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1519 | 1055 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 172 | 284 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6339 | 7533 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 28.91 | 20.161 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.94 | 304.279 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.83 | 1.655 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 27.833 | 30.046 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 103.937 | 96.934 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2486 | 2179 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3587 | 3170 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3356 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2486 | 2179 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3587 | 3170 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3356 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 585 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX | AMD Radeon R7 250 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | GM108 | Oland |
Date de sortie | 28 June 2016 | 8 October 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1107 | 1109 |
Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $89 | |
Prix maintenant | $78.34 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 27.62 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 993 MHz | 1050 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 954 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 762.6 gflops | 716.8 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 23.83 GTexel / s | 22.4 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 23 Watt | 75 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 1,040 million |
Stream Processors | 384 | |
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 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | N / A |
Longeur | 168 mm | |
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 | 40.1 GB / s | 72 GB/s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 1150 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3, GDDR5 | DDR3 / GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
CUDA | ||
GameWorks | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GPU Boost | ||
Optimus | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync |