NVIDIA Quadro K620M versus Intel HD Graphics 4400
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K620M and Intel HD Graphics 4400 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 - 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), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K620M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 5 mois plus tard
- 2.9x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1029 MHz versus 350 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 17.98 GTexel / s versus 4.6 GTexel / s
- 19.2x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 20
- 18.8x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 863.2 gflops versus 46 gflops
- 2.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1163 versus 524
- 2.8x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5974 versus 2143
- 3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 23.872 versus 7.844
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 165.904 versus 154.696
- 11x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 91.813 versus 8.335
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1291 versus 817
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1291 versus 817
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 1 March 2015 versus 3 September 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz versus 350 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 17.98 GTexel / s versus 4.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 20 |
| Performance á point flottant | 863.2 gflops versus 46 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1163 versus 524 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5974 versus 2143 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 23.872 versus 7.844 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 165.904 versus 154.696 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 91.813 versus 8.335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1291 versus 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1291 versus 817 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 4400
- Environ 2% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 1124 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 50% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 20 Watt versus 30 Watt
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 277 versus 157
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1381 versus 927
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3044 versus 1349
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1381 versus 927
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3044 versus 1349
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 1124 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt versus 30 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 277 versus 157 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1381 versus 927 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 versus 1349 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1381 versus 927 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 versus 1349 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K620M
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4400
| 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 - 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 Quadro K620M | Intel HD Graphics 4400 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1163 | 524 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 157 | 277 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5974 | 2143 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 23.872 | 7.844 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 165.904 | 154.696 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 91.813 | 8.335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1291 | 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 927 | 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1349 | 3044 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1291 | 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 927 | 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1349 | 3044 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.958 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.084 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 152 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro K620M | Intel HD Graphics 4400 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Generation 7.5 |
| Nom de code | GM108 | Haswell GT2 |
| Date de sortie | 1 March 2015 | 3 September 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1414 | 1417 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1124 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 863.2 gflops | 46 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 22 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 20 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 17.98 GTexel / s | 4.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 392 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 1 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| CUDA | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro K620M avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
ATIRadeon 7200
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9600 GSO
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
IntelHD Graphics 4400
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
AMDRadeon R7 M265
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
AMDRadeon R6 Graphics
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
IntelUHD Graphics 615
