AMD Radeon R7 240 versus Intel HD Graphics 4000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 240 and Intel HD Graphics 4000 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 AMD Radeon R7 240
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 4 mois plus tard
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 15.6 GTexel / s versus 4.2 GTexel / s
- 20x plus de pipelines: 320 versus 16
- 14.9x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 499.2 gflops versus 33.6 gflops
- 2.6x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 902 versus 347
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 274 versus 194
- 9.9x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5331 versus 538
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.344 versus 8.712
- Environ 87% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 290.632 versus 155.638
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.262 versus 0.931
- 2.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.59 versus 7.36
- 5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 60.326 versus 12.009
- 2.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1688 versus 754
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2342 versus 1492
- Environ 40% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 versus 2392
- 2.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1688 versus 754
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2342 versus 1492
- Environ 40% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 versus 2392
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 versus 14 May 2012 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.6 GTexel / s versus 4.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 320 versus 16 |
| Performance á point flottant | 499.2 gflops versus 33.6 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 902 versus 347 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 274 versus 194 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5331 versus 538 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 versus 8.712 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 versus 155.638 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 versus 0.931 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 versus 7.36 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 versus 12.009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1688 versus 754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 versus 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 versus 2392 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1688 versus 754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 versus 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 versus 2392 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 4000
- Environ 35% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 11% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 45 Watt versus 50 Watt
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 780 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt versus 50 Watt |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 240
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4000
| 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 | AMD Radeon R7 240 | Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 902 | 347 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 274 | 194 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5331 | 538 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 | 8.712 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 | 155.638 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 | 0.931 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 | 7.36 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 | 12.009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1688 | 754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 | 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 2392 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1688 | 754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 | 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 2392 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R7 240 | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 7.0 |
| Nom de code | Oland | Ivy Bridge GT2 |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 14 May 2012 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $69 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1236 | 1501 |
| Prix maintenant | $49.99 | |
| Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 24.92 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 499.2 gflops | 33.6 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 22 nm |
| Pipelines | 320 | 16 |
| Stream Processors | 320 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.6 GTexel / s | 4.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,200 million |
| Vitesse du noyau | 650 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 168 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | N / A | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 11.1 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.0 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 72 GB/s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1150 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
Technologies |
||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R7 240 avec des autres
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4250 IGP
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6370M
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6550D
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 840M
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
IntelUHD Graphics 630
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
IntelUHD Graphics 617
