Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Radeon HD 7560D IGP

Reasons to consider the
IGP Radeon HD 7560D IGP

Report a correction
Slightly higher pixel rate 6.08 GPixel/s vs 1.75 GPixel/s Around 3.5x higher pixel rate
Slightly more shading units 256 vs 48 208 more shading units
Slightly more render output processors 8 vs 4 Twice as many render output processors
Slightly more texture mapping units 16 vs 8 Twice as many texture mapping units
Front view of GeForce GT 625

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GT 625

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 874 MHz vs 760 MHz 15% higher clock speed
Lower TDP 29W vs 65W 2.2x lower TDP

Features Key features of the Radeon HD 7560D IGP  vs GeForce GT 625 

pixel rate Number of pixels a graphics card can render to the screen every second

Radeon HD 7560D IGP
6.08 GPixel/s
GeForce GT 625
1.75 GPixel/s

texture rate Speed at which a graphics card can perform texture mapping

Radeon HD 7560D IGP
12.2 GTexel/s
GeForce GT 625
6.99 GTexel/s

floating point performance How fast the gpu can crunch numbers

Radeon HD 7560D IGP
389.1 GFLOPS
GeForce GT 625
167.81 GFLOPS

shading units Subcomponents of the gpu, these run in parallel to enable fast pixel shading

texture mapping units Built into each gpu, these resize and rotate bitmaps for texturing scenes

render output processors GPU commponents responsible for transform pixels as they flow between memory buffers

Specifications Full list of technical specs

gpu

Radeon HD 7560D IGP  vs
GeForce GT 625 
GPU brand AMD Nvidia
GPU name Devastator GF119
Clock speed 760 MHz 874 MHz
Is dual GPU No No
Reference card None None

noise and power

TDP 65W 29W

raw performance

Radeon HD 7560D IGP  vs
GeForce GT 625 
Shading units 256 48
Texture mapping units 16 8
Render output processors 8 4
Pixel rate 6.08 GPixel/s 1.75 GPixel/s
Texture rate 12.2 GTexel/s 6.99 GTexel/s
Floating-point performance 389.1 GFLOPS 167.81 GFLOPS

Comments

comments powered by Disqus