Ati radeon hd 5670 vs nvidia geforce 8800 gt
-
Comparative analysis of ATI Radeon HD 5670 và NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, video outputs & ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: 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 - clip Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - oto Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - oto Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Bạn đang xem: Ati radeon hd 5670 vs nvidia geforce 8800 gt
ATI Radeon HD 5670
vs
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Differences
Reasons to lớn consider the ATI Radeon HD 5670
Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 2 month(s) later3.6x more pipelines: 400 vs 112Around 85% better floating-point performance: 620.0 gflops vs 336.0 gflopsA newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nmAround 64% lower typical power consumption: 64 Watt vs 105 Watt2x more maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 512 MB4.4x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 900 MHzAround 55% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 786 vs 5063.7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 285 vs 77| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 14 January 2010 vs 29 October 2007 |
| Pipelines | 400 vs 112 |
| Floating-point performance | 620.0 gflops vs 336.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design power nguồn (TDP) | 64 Watt vs 105 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz vs 900 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 786 vs 506 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 285 vs 77 |
Xem thêm: Pokemon Black And White Hướng Dẫn Chơi Pokemon Black And White Toàn Tập Poke
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Around 94% higher bộ vi xử lý core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 775 MHz2.2x more texture fill rate: 33.6 billion / sec vs 15.5 GTexel / sAround 58% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 vs 2113Around 58% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 vs 2113| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 775 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 33.6 billion / sec vs 15.5 GTexel / s |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 vs 2113 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 vs 2113 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: ATI Radeon HD 5670 GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
| PassMark - G3D Mark | GPU 1 |
| GPU 2 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 786 | 506 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 285 | 77 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1471 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.914 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 184.557 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.319 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - clip Composition (Frames/s) | 12.627 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 27.325 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - oto Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1462 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1129 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2113 | 3346 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - oto Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1462 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1129 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2113 | 3346 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Xem thêm: Hướng Dẫn Cách Tải, Cách Chơi Pubg Battlegrounds Từ A Đến Z Cực Kì Đơn Giản
Essentials | ||
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Tesla |
| Code name | Redwood | G92 |
| Design | ATI Radeon HD 5000 Series | |
| Launch date | 14 January 2010 | 29 October 2007 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119 | $349 |
| Place in performance rating | 1349 | 1271 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Technical info | ||
| Boost clock speed | 775 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 620.0 gflops | 336.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 400 | 112 |
| Stream Processors | 400 | |
| Texture fill rate | 15.5 GTexel / s | 33.6 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design nguồn (TDP) | 64 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Transistor count | 627 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 112 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports | ||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, Dual liên kết DVIHDTV |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
| Audio đầu vào for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Maximum card vga resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements | ||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 9" (22.9 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 6-pin và 8-pin |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support | ||
| DirectX | 11 | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
Memory | ||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 57.6 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Technologies | ||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| Unified video clip Decoder (UVD) | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit |
