NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M versus AMD FirePro V3900
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M and AMD FirePro V3900 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 GT 640M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- 6.2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 32 Watt versus 199 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 923 versus 640
- 2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3184 versus 1564
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 7.861 versus 4.646
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.727 versus 0.468
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 15.445 versus 13.784
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1476 versus 1311
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1963 versus 1631
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1476 versus 1311
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1963 versus 1631
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 March 2012 versus 7 February 2012 |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 32 Watt versus 199 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 923 versus 640 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3184 versus 1564 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.861 versus 4.646 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.727 versus 0.468 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.445 versus 13.784 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1476 versus 1311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1963 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1476 versus 1311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1963 versus 1631 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro V3900
- Environ 25% de pipelines plus haut: 480 versus 384
- Environ 30% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 624.0 gflops versus 480.0 gflops
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 237 versus 198
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 279.435 versus 275.972
- 3.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 58.58 versus 17.381
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 versus 2580
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 versus 2580
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 480 versus 384 |
| Performance á point flottant | 624.0 gflops versus 480.0 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 237 versus 198 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 279.435 versus 275.972 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 58.58 versus 17.381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 2580 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 2580 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M
GPU 2: AMD FirePro V3900
| 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 GT 640M | AMD FirePro V3900 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 923 | 640 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 198 | 237 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3184 | 1564 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.861 | 4.646 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 275.972 | 279.435 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.727 | 0.468 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.445 | 13.784 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 17.381 | 58.58 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1476 | 1311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1963 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2580 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1476 | 1311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1963 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2580 | 3358 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M | AMD FirePro V3900 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | TeraScale 2 |
| Nom de code | GK107 | Turks |
| Date de sortie | 22 March 2012 | 7 February 2012 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1346 | 1347 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 645 MHz | |
| Noyaux CUDA | 384 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 480.0 gflops | 624.0 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 480 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 32 Watt | 199 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | 716 million |
| Vitesse du noyau | 650 MHz | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.6 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | |
| Compte DisplayPort | 1 | |
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Sortie du composant vidéo HD | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 2.1 x16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
| Facteur de forme | Half Height / Half Length | |
| Longeur | 168 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 API | 11.2 (11_0) |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3\GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 28 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 570M
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 510 OEM
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
AMDFirePro V3900
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M LE
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8350G
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8550 OEM
