Nvidia geforce 8800 gt vs ati radeon hd 5670
-
Comparative analysis of ATI Radeon HD 5670 and NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, đoạn clip outputs & ports, Compatibility, dimensions & 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 - video clip 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 - oto Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Bạn đang xem: Nvidia geforce 8800 gt vs ati radeon hd 5670
ATI Radeon HD 5670
vs
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Differences
Reasons 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 nguồn 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 54% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 782 vs 5083.6x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 282 vs 79| 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 | 782 vs 508 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 282 vs 79 |
Xem thêm: Tải Game Lái Máy Xúc, Tải Game Máy Cẩu Cho Ipad, Game Lái Máy Xúc
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Around 94% higher 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 | 782 | 508 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 282 | 79 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1471 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.912 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 184.557 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.316 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - video Composition (Frames/s) | 12.626 | |
| 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: Thuật Ngữ Dịch Các Lá Bài Yugioh Sang Tieng Viet? Thuật Ngữ Dịch Bài
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 | 1294 | 1211 |
| 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 power (TDP) | 64 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Transistor count | 627 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 112 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs và ports | ||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, Dual link DVIHDTV |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Maximum vga resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions & requirements | ||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 9" (22.9 cm) |
| Supplementary power nguồn connectors | None | 6-pin & 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 Decoder (UVD) | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit |
