NVIDIA NVS 510 versus AMD Radeon HD 6570
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA NVS 510 and AMD Radeon HD 6570 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 NVS 510
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 8 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 14% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 35 Watt versus 40 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- Environ 98% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1782 MHz versus 900 MHz
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 692 versus 550
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 288 versus 216
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 1706 versus 1550
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 6.809 versus 4.278
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 23 October 2012 versus 7 February 2011 |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt versus 40 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1782 MHz versus 900 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 692 versus 550 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 288 versus 216 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 1706 versus 1550 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 6.809 versus 4.278 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 6570
- Environ 22% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 15.6 GTexel / s versus 12.75 GTexel / s
- 2.5x plus de pipelines: 480 versus 192
- 2x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 624.0 gflops versus 306.0 gflops
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 255.525 versus 111.269
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.464 versus 0.399
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 13.633 versus 7.769
- 6.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 59.183 versus 9.522
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1296 versus 1211
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1044 versus 976
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2716 versus 1720
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1296 versus 1211
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1044 versus 976
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2716 versus 1720
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.6 GTexel / s versus 12.75 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 480 versus 192 |
Performance á point flottant | 624.0 gflops versus 306.0 gflops |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 255.525 versus 111.269 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.464 versus 0.399 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.633 versus 7.769 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 59.183 versus 9.522 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1296 versus 1211 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1044 versus 976 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2716 versus 1720 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1296 versus 1211 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1044 versus 976 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2716 versus 1720 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA NVS 510
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 6570
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) |
|
|
Nom | NVIDIA NVS 510 | AMD Radeon HD 6570 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 692 | 550 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 288 | 216 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 1706 | 1550 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 6.809 | 4.278 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 111.269 | 255.525 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.399 | 0.464 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 7.769 | 13.633 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 9.522 | 59.183 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1211 | 1296 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 976 | 1044 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1720 | 2716 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1211 | 1296 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 976 | 1044 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1720 | 2716 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 846 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA NVS 510 | AMD Radeon HD 6570 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Kepler | TeraScale 2 |
Nom de code | GK107 | Thames |
Date de sortie | 23 October 2012 | 7 February 2011 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $449 | $79 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1430 | 1432 |
Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon HD 6000 Series | |
Prix maintenant | $49.99 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 19.92 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 797 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 306.0 gflops | 624.0 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 192 | 480 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 12.75 GTexel / s | 15.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 40 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | 716 million |
Vitesse augmenté | 650 MHz | |
Stream Processors | 480 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
Eyefinity | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Longeur | 160 mm | 168 mm |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 2.1 x16 | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 11 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.51 GB / s | 28.8 GB/s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1782 MHz | 900 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
CrossFire | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |