NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 versus Intel HD Graphics 4600
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 and Intel HD Graphics 4600 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 GT 710
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 9 mois plus tard
- 2.4x plus de vitesse du noyau: 954 MHz versus 400 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 15.26 GTexel / s versus 5 GTexel / s
- 9.6x plus de pipelines: 192 versus 20
- 7.3x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 366.3 gflops versus 50 gflops
- 2.4x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 19 Watt versus 45 Watt
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 20.64 versus 12.361
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 27 March 2014 versus 3 June 2013 |
Vitesse du noyau | 954 MHz versus 400 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.26 GTexel / s versus 5 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 192 versus 20 |
Performance á point flottant | 366.3 gflops versus 50 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 19 Watt versus 45 Watt |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 20.64 versus 12.361 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 4600
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 630 versus 623
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 314 versus 212
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3210 versus 1946
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.844 versus 6.705
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 171.17 versus 100.391
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.115 versus 0.441
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 10.385 versus 8.146
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 988 versus 977
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1702 versus 1494
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2808 versus 1833
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 988 versus 977
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1702 versus 1494
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2808 versus 1833
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 194 versus 192
Caractéristiques | |
Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 28 nm |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 630 versus 623 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 314 versus 212 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3210 versus 1946 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.844 versus 6.705 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 171.17 versus 100.391 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.115 versus 0.441 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.385 versus 8.146 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 988 versus 977 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1702 versus 1494 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2808 versus 1833 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 988 versus 977 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1702 versus 1494 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2808 versus 1833 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 194 versus 192 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 710
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4600
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 GT 710 | Intel HD Graphics 4600 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 623 | 630 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 212 | 314 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 1946 | 3210 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 6.705 | 8.844 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 100.391 | 171.17 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.441 | 1.115 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 8.146 | 10.385 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 20.64 | 12.361 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 977 | 988 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1494 | 1702 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1833 | 2808 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 977 | 988 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1494 | 1702 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1833 | 2808 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 192 | 194 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 | Intel HD Graphics 4600 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Kepler 2.0 | Generation 7.5 |
Nom de code | GK208B | Haswell GT2 |
Date de sortie | 27 March 2014 | 3 June 2013 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $34.99 | |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1488 | 1359 |
Prix maintenant | $34.99 | |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 23.15 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 954 MHz | 400 MHz |
Noyaux CUDA | 192 | |
Performance á point flottant | 366.3 gflops | 50 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 22 nm |
Température maximale du GPU | 95 °C | |
Pipelines | 192 | 20 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.26 GTexel / s | 5 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 19 Watt | 45 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 292 million | 392 million |
Vitesse augmenté | 1250 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
Connecteurs d’écran | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA, 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
Soutien de plusiers moniteurs | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0 | |
Hauteur | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
Longeur | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_1) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1.8 GB/s | |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
CUDA | ||
FXAA | ||
PhysX | ||
PureVideo | ||
Quick Sync |