NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q versus AMD Radeon R9 270
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q and AMD Radeon R9 270 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 4 ans 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 53% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1417 MHz versus 925 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 150 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 5356 versus 4306
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 293.638 versus 261.843
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8059 versus 3448
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8059 versus 3448
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2219 versus 1603
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 3 January 2018 versus 13 November 2013 |
Vitesse augmenté | 1417 MHz versus 925 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 150 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5356 versus 4306 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 293.638 versus 261.843 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8059 versus 3448 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3347 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8059 versus 3448 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3347 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2219 versus 1603 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 270
- Environ 9% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 74 GTexel / s versus 68.02 GTexel / s
- Environ 67% de pipelines plus haut: 1280 versus 768
- Environ 9% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,368 gflops versus 2,177 gflops
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 567 versus 423
- 3.7x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 74175 versus 19807
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 55.721 versus 54.188
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1282.039 versus 1159.046
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.927 versus 5.507
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 93.116 versus 82.067
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3699 versus 3579
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3699 versus 3579
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 74 GTexel / s versus 68.02 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1280 versus 768 |
Performance á point flottant | 2,368 gflops versus 2,177 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 567 versus 423 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 74175 versus 19807 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.721 versus 54.188 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1282.039 versus 1159.046 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.927 versus 5.507 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 93.116 versus 82.067 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3699 versus 3579 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3699 versus 3579 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 270
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 GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q | AMD Radeon R9 270 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5356 | 4306 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 423 | 567 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 19807 | 74175 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.188 | 55.721 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1159.046 | 1282.039 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.507 | 5.927 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 82.067 | 93.116 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 293.638 | 261.843 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8059 | 3448 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3579 | 3699 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3347 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8059 | 3448 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3579 | 3699 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3347 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2219 | 1603 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q | AMD Radeon R9 270 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | GP107 | Curacao |
Date de sortie | 3 January 2018 | 13 November 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 518 | 520 |
Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $179 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1417 MHz | 925 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 1152 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 2,177 gflops | 2,368 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 768 | 1280 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 68.02 GTexel / s | 74 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 3,300 million | 2,800 million |
Stream Processors | 1280 | |
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 | medium sized | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1 x 6-pin |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Longeur | 210 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 112.1 GB / s | 179.2 GB/s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz | |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
Multi Monitor | ||
Multi-Projection | ||
VR Ready | ||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |