NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M 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 960M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 8 mois plus tard
- Environ 12% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1096 MHz versus 980 MHz
- Environ 50% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 47.04 GTexel / s versus 31.36 GTexel / s
- Environ 67% de pipelines plus haut: 640 versus 384
- 2x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,505 gflops versus 752.6 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 96% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3366 versus 1713
- 2.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10985 versus 4928
- 4.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 54.294 versus 12.449
- Environ 74% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.325 versus 455.796
- 2.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.692 versus 1.295
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.794 versus 24.566
- 6.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 174.513 versus 28.025
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5264 versus 3093
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 versus 3504
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5264 versus 3093
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 versus 3504
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 versus 25 June 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1096 MHz versus 980 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 47.04 GTexel / s versus 31.36 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 versus 384 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,505 gflops versus 752.6 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3366 versus 1713 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10985 versus 4928 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.294 versus 12.449 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.325 versus 455.796 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.692 versus 1.295 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.794 versus 24.566 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 174.513 versus 28.025 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5264 versus 3093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 versus 3504 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5264 versus 3093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 versus 3504 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3344 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M
- Environ 50% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 2.2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5400 MHz versus 2500 MHz
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 333 versus 245
- Environ 74% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2148 versus 1231
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5400 MHz versus 2500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 333 versus 245 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2148 versus 1231 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M
| 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 960M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3366 | 1713 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 245 | 333 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10985 | 4928 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.294 | 12.449 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.325 | 455.796 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.692 | 1.295 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.794 | 24.566 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 174.513 | 28.025 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5264 | 3093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | 3504 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5264 | 3093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | 3504 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3344 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1231 | 2148 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GM107 | GK107 |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 | 25 June 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 735 | 934 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1176 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1096 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Noyaux CUDA | 640 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,505 gflops | 752.6 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 47.04 GTexel / s | 31.36 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 1,270 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | 1 | Up to 3840x2160 |
| HDMI | ||
| Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | 1 | Up to 2048x1536 |
| Audio HD reseau 7.1 sur HDMI | ||
| Soutien du signal sDP 1.2 | Up to 3840x2160 | |
| Protection du contenu HDCP | ||
| Support du signale LVDS | Up to 1920x1200 | |
| Bitstreaming d’audio TrueHD et DTS-HD | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | medium sized |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80 GB / s | 86.4 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2500 MHz | 5400 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
| Configuration standard de la mémoire | GDDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | ||
| Direct Compute | ||
| FXAA | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
ATIRadeon X700
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIAGRID K520
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 880M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
IntelIris Pro Graphics P6300
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
AMDRadeon 630
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
IntelUHD Graphics 710
