NVIDIA GeForce MX250 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce MX250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 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 3 ans 11 mois plus tard
- 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
- 2.4x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 6008 MHz versus 2500 MHz
| Date de sortie | 21 February 2019 versus 13 March 2015 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz versus 2500 MHz |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
- Environ 17% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1096 MHz versus 937 MHz
- Environ 13% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1176 MHz versus 1038 MHz
- Environ 67% de pipelines plus haut: 640 versus 384
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3366 versus 2392
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 245 versus 240
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10985 versus 9329
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 54.294 versus 46.992
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.325 versus 535.24
- Environ 40% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.692 versus 2.64
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.794 versus 44.7
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 174.513 versus 141.816
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5264 versus 4027
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5264 versus 4027
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1231 versus 888
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1096 MHz versus 937 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1176 MHz versus 1038 MHz |
| Pipelines | 640 versus 384 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3366 versus 2392 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 245 versus 240 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10985 versus 9329 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.294 versus 46.992 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.325 versus 535.24 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.692 versus 2.64 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.794 versus 44.7 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 174.513 versus 141.816 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5264 versus 4027 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 versus 3710 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5264 versus 4027 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 versus 3710 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3357 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1231 versus 888 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
| 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 960M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2392 | 3366 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 240 | 245 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9329 | 10985 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 46.992 | 54.294 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 535.24 | 795.325 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.64 | 3.692 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 44.7 | 51.794 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 141.816 | 174.513 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4027 | 5264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3710 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4027 | 5264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3710 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 888 | 1231 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce MX250 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | GP108B | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 21 February 2019 | 13 March 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 861 | 735 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1038 MHz | 1176 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 937 MHz | 1096 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 | 1,870 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 640 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,505 gflops | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 47.04 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | 1 | |
| HDMI | ||
| Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | 1 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80 GB / s | |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| 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 MX250 avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
ATIRadeon X1600 XT
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M380
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
IntelIris Plus Graphics 650
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
AMDRadeon 540
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs
IntelUHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU)
