NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q versus AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q and AMD Radeon E9550 MXM 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 Ti Max-Q
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 3% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1152 MHz versus 1120 MHz
- Environ 12% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1417 MHz versus 1266 MHz
- Environ 27% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 95 Watt
- Environ 40% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7008 MHz versus 5000 MHz
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8059 versus 6622
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 versus 3208
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8059 versus 6622
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 versus 3208
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 3 January 2018 versus 27 September 2016 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1152 MHz versus 1120 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1417 MHz versus 1266 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 95 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz versus 5000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8059 versus 6622 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3208 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8059 versus 6622 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3208 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 182.3 GTexel / s versus 68.02 GTexel / s
- 3x plus de pipelines: 2304 versus 768
- 2.7x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 5,834 gflops versus 2,177 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 86% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 36624 versus 19710
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 112.64 versus 54.188
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.586 versus 1159.046
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 9.473 versus 5.507
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 96.618 versus 82.067
- Environ 73% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 507.291 versus 293.638
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3597 versus 3579
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3597 versus 3579
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 182.3 GTexel / s versus 68.02 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2304 versus 768 |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,834 gflops versus 2,177 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 4 GB |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 36624 versus 19710 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 112.64 versus 54.188 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.586 versus 1159.046 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.473 versus 5.507 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 96.618 versus 82.067 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 507.291 versus 293.638 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3597 versus 3579 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3597 versus 3579 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
| 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 GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q | AMD Radeon E9550 MXM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5355 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 425 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19710 | 36624 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.188 | 112.64 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1159.046 | 1474.586 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.507 | 9.473 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 82.067 | 96.618 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 293.638 | 507.291 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8059 | 6622 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3579 | 3597 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3208 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8059 | 6622 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3579 | 3597 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3208 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2219 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q | AMD Radeon E9550 MXM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 4.0 |
| Nom de code | GP107 | Ellesmere |
| Date de sortie | 3 January 2018 | 27 September 2016 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 517 | 518 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1417 MHz | 1266 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1152 MHz | 1120 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,177 gflops | 5,834 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 2304 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 68.02 GTexel / s | 182.3 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,300 million | 5,700 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 112.1 GB / s | 160.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Multi Monitor | ||
| Multi-Projection | ||
| VR Ready | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon X1300 PRO
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 3500M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon Sky 500
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon R9 270
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 730A
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM
