NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 versus AMD Radeon R7 240
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 and AMD Radeon R7 240 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 740
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 7 mois plus tard
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 31.78 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 20% de pipelines plus haut: 384 versus 320
- Environ 53% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 762.6 gflops versus 499.2 gflops
- 4.4x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5012 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1469 versus 902
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 349 versus 274
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1790 versus 1688
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1790 versus 1688
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 29 May 2014 versus 8 October 2013 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 31.78 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 384 versus 320 |
Performance á point flottant | 762.6 gflops versus 499.2 gflops |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1469 versus 902 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 349 versus 274 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 291.627 versus 290.632 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1790 versus 1688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1790 versus 1688 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 240
- Environ 28% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 64 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5331 versus 4271
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.344 versus 11.994
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.262 versus 1.023
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.59 versus 15.139
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 60.326 versus 23.651
- Environ 64% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2342 versus 1427
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 versus 2153
- Environ 64% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2342 versus 1427
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 versus 2153
Caractéristiques | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 64 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5331 versus 4271 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 versus 11.994 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 versus 1.023 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 versus 15.139 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 versus 23.651 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 versus 1427 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 versus 2153 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 versus 1427 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 versus 2153 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 740
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 240
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 740 | AMD Radeon R7 240 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1469 | 902 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 349 | 274 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4271 | 5331 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 11.994 | 13.344 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 291.627 | 290.632 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.023 | 1.262 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.139 | 21.59 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 23.651 | 60.326 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1790 | 1688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1427 | 2342 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2153 | 3353 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1790 | 1688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1427 | 2342 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2153 | 3353 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 513 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 | AMD Radeon R7 240 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | GK107 | Oland |
Date de sortie | 29 May 2014 | 8 October 2013 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $89 | $69 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1270 | 1236 |
Prix maintenant | $94.99 | $49.99 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 18.87 | 24.92 |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 993 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 762.6 gflops | 499.2 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 320 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 31.78 GTexel / s | 15.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 64 Watt | 50 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | 1,040 million |
Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | |
Stream Processors | 320 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Longeur | 145 mm | 168 mm |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | N / A |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 1 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.19 GB / s | 72 GB/s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 1150 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Technologies |
||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync |