NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M versus AMD FirePro D300
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and AMD FirePro D300 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 965M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 11% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 944 MHz versus 850 MHz
- Environ 8% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 73.6 GTexel / s versus 68 GTexel / s
- Environ 8% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,355 gflops versus 2,176 gflops
- 3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 150 Watt
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.59 versus 51.183
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 9 January 2015 versus 18 January 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 944 MHz versus 850 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 73.6 GTexel / s versus 68 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,355 gflops versus 2,176 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 150 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.59 versus 51.183 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro D300
- Environ 25% de pipelines plus haut: 1280 versus 1024
- 2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5080 MHz versus 2500 MHz
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 20117 versus 14492
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1192.547 versus 720.592
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.209 versus 3.903
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 78.541 versus 57.947
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 242.179 versus 223.296
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6054 versus 5783
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3397 versus 2566
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6054 versus 5783
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3397 versus 2566
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 1280 versus 1024 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5080 MHz versus 2500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 20117 versus 14492 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1192.547 versus 720.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.209 versus 3.903 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 78.541 versus 57.947 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 242.179 versus 223.296 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6054 versus 5783 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3397 versus 2566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3351 versus 3337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6054 versus 5783 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3397 versus 2566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3351 versus 3337 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
GPU 2: AMD FirePro D300
| 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 965M | AMD FirePro D300 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3812 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 344 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14492 | 20117 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.59 | 51.183 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 720.592 | 1192.547 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.903 | 5.209 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 57.947 | 78.541 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 223.296 | 242.179 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5783 | 6054 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2566 | 3397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3337 | 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5783 | 6054 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2566 | 3397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3337 | 3351 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1831 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M | AMD FirePro D300 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | GM204 | Pitcairn |
| Date de sortie | 9 January 2015 | 18 January 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 684 | 686 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 950 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 944 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Noyaux CUDA | 1024 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,355 gflops | 2,176 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1024 | 1280 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 73.6 GTexel / s | 68 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 5,200 million | 2,800 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | 1 | |
| Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | 1 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Options SLI | 1 | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
| Longeur | 242 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80 GB / s | 162.6 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2500 MHz | 5080 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 965M vs
IntelHD Graphics P4600
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 965M vs
AMDFirePro D300
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 965M vs
AMDFirePro W5170M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 965M vs
AMDRadeon Pro 455
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 965M vs
IntelIris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 965M vs
IntelArc Pro A40
