NVIDIA GeForce MX250 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce MX250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M 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 MX250
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 4 ans 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 18% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 937 MHz versus 797 MHz
- Environ 13% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1038 MHz versus 915 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 7.5x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 10 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 241 versus 225
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 46.992 versus 22.828
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 535.24 versus 210.585
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 44.7 versus 28.662
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3710 versus 3684
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 versus 3340
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3710 versus 3684
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 versus 3340
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 21 February 2019 versus 10 March 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 937 MHz versus 797 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1038 MHz versus 915 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 versus 225 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 46.992 versus 22.828 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 535.24 versus 210.585 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 44.7 versus 28.662 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3710 versus 3684 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 3340 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3710 versus 3684 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 3340 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M
- Environ 67% de pipelines plus haut: 640 versus 384
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3048 versus 2412
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10305 versus 9236
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.416 versus 2.64
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 162.83 versus 141.816
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4938 versus 4027
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4938 versus 4027
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1151 versus 888
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 640 versus 384 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3048 versus 2412 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10305 versus 9236 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.416 versus 2.64 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 162.83 versus 141.816 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4938 versus 4027 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4938 versus 4027 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1151 versus 888 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M
| 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 MX250 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2412 | 3048 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 225 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9236 | 10305 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 46.992 | 22.828 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 535.24 | 210.585 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.64 | 3.416 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 44.7 | 28.662 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 141.816 | 162.83 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4027 | 4938 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3710 | 3684 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3340 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4027 | 4938 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3710 | 3684 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3340 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 888 | 1151 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce MX250 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GP108B | GK104 |
| Date de sortie | 21 February 2019 | 10 March 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 902 | 904 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1038 MHz | 915 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 937 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 640 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,800 million | 3,540 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 1152 or 640 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,389 gflops | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 43.4 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Audio HD reseau 7.1 sur HDMI | ||
| Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | Up to 3840x2160 | |
| Soutien du signal sDP 1.2 | Up to 3840x2160 | |
| Protection du contenu HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Support du signale LVDS | Up to 1920x1200 | |
| Bitstreaming d’audio TrueHD et DTS-HD | ||
| Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.0 GB / s | |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
| Configuration standard de la mémoire | GDDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| Direct Compute | ||
| FXAA | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
| TXAA | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce MX250 avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
NVIDIAGeForce PCX 5300
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 2600 XT
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7150M + nForce 630M
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 860M
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
AMDRadeon Vega 11
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
NVIDIAT400
