NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB versus AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB and AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB
- 4.6x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1392 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 38% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1518 MHz versus 1100 MHz
- 3.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8368 versus 2408
- 3.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8368 versus 2408
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3717 versus 3170
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3717 versus 3170
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 601 versus 355
- 2.7x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 5119 versus 1894
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1392 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1518 MHz versus 1100 MHz |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8368 versus 2408 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8368 versus 2408 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 versus 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 versus 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 versus 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 versus 3352 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 601 versus 355 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5119 versus 1894 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient
- 2.1x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 35 Watt versus 75 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
| Nom | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB | AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient |
|---|---|---|
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8368 | 2408 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8368 | 2408 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3352 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 601 | 355 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5119 | 1894 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.039 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 176.928 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.666 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 27.603 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 135.437 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 862 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB | AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 5.0 |
| Nom de code | GP107 | Raven |
| Date de sortie | 21 May 2018 | 23 April 2018 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 334 | 931 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1518 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1392 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,300 million | 4,940 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |
| Longeur | 145 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz | |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs
AMDFirePro W9000
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX TITAN Z
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX TITAN X
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs
NVIDIAQuadro P3200 Mobile
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs
AMDRadeon Pro W5500X
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs
IntelArc A370M
