NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 versus AMD Radeon R9 290
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 and AMD Radeon R9 290 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 970
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 11% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1050 MHz versus 947 MHz
- Environ 86% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 148 Watt versus 275 Watt
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 9638 versus 8293
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 105.107 versus 89.325
- Environ 83% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11499 versus 6300
- Environ 83% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11499 versus 6300
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 19 September 2014 versus 5 November 2013 |
Vitesse du noyau | 1050 MHz versus 947 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 148 Watt versus 275 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 9638 versus 8293 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 105.107 versus 89.325 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11499 versus 6300 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11499 versus 6300 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 290
- Environ 39% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 151.5 GTexel / s versus 109 billion / sec
- Environ 54% de pipelines plus haut: 2560 versus 1664
- Environ 24% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 4,849 gflops versus 3,920 gflops
- 714.3x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5000 MHz versus 7.0 GB/s
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 775 versus 769
- 3.6x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 102277 versus 28476
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1366.314 versus 1225.96
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 10.034 versus 8.76
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 98.765 versus 35.714
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 540.645 versus 489.884
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3683 versus 3626
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 151.5 GTexel / s versus 109 billion / sec |
Pipelines | 2560 versus 1664 |
Performance á point flottant | 4,849 gflops versus 3,920 gflops |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5000 MHz versus 7.0 GB/s |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 775 versus 769 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 102277 versus 28476 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1366.314 versus 1225.96 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.034 versus 8.76 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 98.765 versus 35.714 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 540.645 versus 489.884 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3711 versus 3698 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 versus 3340 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3711 versus 3698 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 versus 3340 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3683 versus 3626 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 290
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 970 | AMD Radeon R9 290 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 9638 | 8293 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 769 | 775 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 28476 | 102277 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 105.107 | 89.325 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1225.96 | 1366.314 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.76 | 10.034 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.714 | 98.765 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 489.884 | 540.645 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11499 | 6300 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3698 | 3711 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3340 | 3354 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11499 | 6300 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 | 3711 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 | 3354 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3626 | 3683 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 | AMD Radeon R9 290 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |
Nom de code | GM204 | Hawaii |
Date de sortie | 19 September 2014 | 5 November 2013 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $329 | $399 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 363 | 360 |
Prix maintenant | $407.76 | |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 28.59 | |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1178 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1050 MHz | 947 MHz |
Noyaux CUDA | 1664 | |
Performance á point flottant | 3,920 gflops | 4,849 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Température maximale du GPU | 98 °C | |
Pipelines | 1664 | 2560 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 109 billion / sec | 151.5 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 148 Watt | 275 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 5,200 million | 6,200 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
HDCP | ||
Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
Soutien de plusiers moniteurs | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Hauteur | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Longeur | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | 275 mm |
Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 500 Watt | |
Options SLI | 4x | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 2x 6-pins | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 224 GB / s | 320.0 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 512 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 7.0 GB/s | 5000 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
Adaptive Vertical Sync | ||
CUDA | ||
GameStream | ||
GameWorks | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
GPU Boost | ||
SLI | ||
Surround | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |