NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) versus AMD Radeon R7 260X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) and AMD Radeon R7 260X 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 GTX 1050 (Notebook)
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 49% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1493 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 16 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 53% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 115 Watt
- Environ 40% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4462 versus 3194
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.209 versus 43.745
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.536 versus 3.673
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.683 versus 221.539
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7239 versus 3845
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3721 versus 3485
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7239 versus 3845
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3721 versus 3485
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2085 versus 1481
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 1 February 2017 versus 8 October 2013 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 115 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4462 versus 3194 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.209 versus 43.745 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.536 versus 3.673 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 223.683 versus 221.539 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7239 versus 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3721 versus 3485 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7239 versus 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3721 versus 3485 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2085 versus 1481 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 260X
- Environ 3% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 61.6 GTexel / s versus 59.72 GTexel / s
- Environ 40% de pipelines plus haut: 896 versus 640
- Environ 3% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,971 gflops versus 1,911 gflops
- Environ 79% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 523 versus 292
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 804.436 versus 799.414
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.088 versus 30.523
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 61.6 GTexel / s versus 59.72 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 896 versus 640 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,971 gflops versus 1,911 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 523 versus 292 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 804.436 versus 799.414 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.088 versus 30.523 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 260X
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D 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) |
|
|
||||
| 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 GTX 1050 (Notebook) | AMD Radeon R7 260X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4462 | 3194 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 292 | 523 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 17470 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.209 | 43.745 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 799.414 | 804.436 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.536 | 3.673 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.523 | 64.088 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 223.683 | 221.539 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7239 | 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3721 | 3485 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7239 | 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3721 | 3485 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2085 | 1481 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) | AMD Radeon R7 260X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 2.0 |
| Nom de code | GP106B | Bonaire |
| Date de sortie | 1 February 2017 | 8 October 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 643 | 645 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $139 | |
| Prix maintenant | $239 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.15 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1354 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,911 gflops | 1,971 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 896 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.72 GTexel / s | 61.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4,400 million | 2,080 million |
| Stream Processors | 896 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Longeur | 170 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1 x 6-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 112.1 GB / s | 104 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Multi Monitor | ||
| Multi-Projection | ||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 1000
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) vs
NVIDIAQuadro NVS 210S
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 3430
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) vs
AMDRadeon R7 260X
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) vs
AMDFirePro W5100
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) vs
AMDRadeon RX 540 OEM
