랩터 인터내셔널에 오신걸 환영 합니다

logo

  • head
  • news
  • product
  • mobile
  • benchmark
  • analysis
  • computing
  • multimedia
넷앱(NetApp)은 신형 ...
휴렛 팩커드 엔터프라...
엔비디아의 공식 지포스GTX 1070 ...
미국 인텔은 옵테인 기술을 채용...

 amd_ryzen_3.jpg


AMD Ryzen SKUs
 Cores/
Threads
Base/
Turbo
XFRL3TDPRetail
7/27
Cooler
Ryzen 7 1800X8/163.6/4.0+10016 MB95 W$419-
Ryzen 7 1700X8/163.4/3.8+10016 MB95 W$299-
Ryzen 7 17008/163.0/3.7+5016 MB65 W$279Spire
RGB
Ryzen 5 1600X6/123.6/4.0+10016 MB95 W$229-
Ryzen 5 16006/123.2/3.6+10016 MB65 W$209Spire
Ryzen 5 1500X4/83.5/3.7+20016 MB65 W$189Spire
Ryzen 5 14004/83.2/3.4+508 MB65 W$159Stealth
Ryzen 3 1300X4/43.5/3.7+2008 MB65 W$129Stealth
Ryzen 3 12004/43.1/3.4+508 MB65 W$109Stealth


새롭게 등장한 라이젠3 1300X, 1200은 모두 4코어 4스레드 제품으로 1300X가 베이스 3.5 클럭, 부스트 3.7클럭, 1200이 베이스 3.1 클럭, 부스트 3.4 클럭, L3캐시는 8MB, TDP 65와트


Comparison: AMD Ryzen 3 1300X
FeaturesIntel
Core i3-7100
AMD
Ryzen 3 1300X
Intel
Core i3-7300
PlatformZ270, B250X370, B350, A320Z270, B250
SocketLGA1151AM4LGA1151
Cores/Threads2 / 44 / 42 / 4
Base/Turbo/XFR3.9 GHz3.4 / 3.7 / 3.9 GHz4.0 GHz
GPU PCIe 3.0x16x16x16
L2 Cache256 KB/core512 KB/core256 KB/core
L3 Cache3 MB8 MB4 MB
TDP51W65W51W
Retail Price (7/28)$115$129$149


인텔 7100 모델과 라이젠 1300X 스펙비교, 인텔은 2코어 4스레드, 3MB 캐시에 51와트, 1300X는 4코어 4스레드에 8MB 캐시, 65와트


Comparison: AMD Ryzen 3 1200
FeaturesIntel
Pentium G4560
Intel
Pentium G4620
AMD
Ryzen 3 1200
Intel
Core i3-7100
Platform200-series200-series300-series200-series
SocketLGA 1151LGA1151AM4LGA1151
Cores/Threads2 / 42 / 44 / 42 / 4
Base/Turbo3.5 GHz3.7 GHz3.1 / 3.4 GHz3.9 GHz
GPU PCIe 3.0x16x16x16x16
L2 Cache256 KB/core256 KB/core512 KB/core256 KB/core
L3 Cache3 MB3 MB8 MB3 MB
TDP54 W51W65W51W
Retail (7/28)$80$105$109$115

 

테스트 시스템


Test Setup
ProcessorAMD Ryzen 3 1300X (4C/4T, 3.4G, 65W)
AMD Ryzen 3 1200 (4C/4T, 3.1G, 65W)
MotherboardsASUS Crosshair VI Hero
CoolingNoctua NH-U12S SE-AM4
Power SupplyCorsair AX860i
MemoryCorsair Vengeance DDR4-3000 C15 2x8GB
Memory SettingsDDR4-2400 C15
Video CardsMSI GTX 1080 Gaming X 8GB
ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB
Sapphire Nitro R9 Fury 4GB
Sapphire Nitro RX 480 8GB
Sapphire Nitro RX 460 4GB (CPU Tests)
Hard DriveCrucial MX200 1TB
Optical DriveLG GH22NS50
CaseOpen Test Bed
Operating SystemWindows 10 Pro 64-bit


FCAT Processing: link

One of the more interesting workloads that has crossed our desks in recent quarters is FCAT - the tool we use to measure stuttering in gaming due to dropped or runt frames. The FCAT process requires enabling a color-based overlay onto a game, recording the gameplay, and then parsing the video file through the analysis software. The software is mostly single-threaded, however because the video is basically in a raw format, the file size is large and requires moving a lot of data around. For our test, we take a 90-second clip of the Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmark running on a GTX 980 Ti at 1440p, which comes in around 21 GB, and measure the time it takes to process through the visual analysis tool.

System: FCAT Processing ROTR 1440p GTX1080 Data

3D Movement Algorithm Test v2.1: link

This is the latest version of the self-penned 3DPM benchmark. The goal of 3DPM is to simulate semi-optimized scientific algorithms taken directly from my doctorate thesis. Version 2.1 improves over 2.0 by passing the main particle structs by reference rather than by value, and decreasing the amount of double->float->double recasts the compiler was adding in. It affords a ~25% speed-up over v2.0, which means new data.

System: 3D Particle Movement v2.1

DigiCortex v1.20: link

Despite being a couple of years old, the DigiCortex software is a pet project for the visualization of neuron and synapse activity in the brain. The software comes with a variety of benchmark modes, and we take the small benchmark which runs a 32k neuron/1.8B synapse simulation. The results on the output are given as a fraction of whether the system can simulate in real-time, so anything above a value of one is suitable for real-time work. The benchmark offers a 'no firing synapse' mode, which in essence detects DRAM and bus speed, however we take the firing mode which adds CPU work with every firing.

System: DigiCortex 1.20 (32k Neuron, 1.8B Synapse)

Agisoft Photoscan 1.0: link

Photoscan stays in our benchmark suite from the previous version, however now we are running on Windows 10 so features such as Speed Shift on the latest processors come into play. The concept of Photoscan is translating many 2D images into a 3D model - so the more detailed the images, and the more you have, the better the model. The algorithm has four stages, some single threaded and some multi-threaded, along with some cache/memory dependency in there as well. For some of the more variable threaded workload, features such as Speed Shift and XFR will be able to take advantage of CPU stalls or downtime, giving sizeable speedups on newer microarchitectures.

System: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0 Total Time


Corona 1.3: link

Corona is a standalone package designed to assist software like 3ds Max and Maya with photorealism via ray tracing. It's simple - shoot rays, get pixels. OK, it's more complicated than that, but the benchmark renders a fixed scene six times and offers results in terms of time and rays per second. The official benchmark tables list user submitted results in terms of time, however I feel rays per second is a better metric (in general, scores where higher is better seem to be easier to explain anyway). Corona likes to pile on the threads, so the results end up being very staggered based on thread count.

Rendering: Corona Photorealism

Blender 2.78: link

For a render that has been around for what seems like ages, Blender is still a highly popular tool. We managed to wrap up a standard workload into the February 5 nightly build of Blender and measure the time it takes to render the first frame of the scene. Being one of the bigger open source tools out there, it means both AMD and Intel work actively to help improve the codebase, for better or for worse on their own/each other's microarchitecture.

Rendering: Blender 2.78

LuxMark v3.1: Link

As a synthetic, LuxMark might come across as somewhat arbitrary as a renderer, given that it's mainly used to test GPUs, but it does offer both an OpenCL and a standard C++ mode. In this instance, aside from seeing the comparison in each coding mode for cores and IPC, we also get to see the difference in performance moving from a C++ based code-stack to an OpenCL one with a CPU as the main host.

Rendering: LuxMark CPU C++Rendering: LuxMark CPU OpenCL

POV-Ray 3.7.1b4: link

Another regular benchmark in most suites, POV-Ray is another ray-tracer but has been around for many years. It just so happens that during the run up to AMD's Ryzen launch, the code base started to get active again with developers making changes to the code and pushing out updates. Our version and benchmarking started just before that was happening, but given time we will see where the POV-Ray code ends up and adjust in due course.

Rendering: POV-Ray 3.7

Cinebench R15: link

The latest version of CineBench has also become one of those 'used everywhere' benchmarks, particularly as an indicator of single thread performance. High IPC and high frequency gives performance in ST, whereas having good scaling and many cores is where the MT test wins out.

Rendering: CineBench 15 SingleThreadedRendering: CineBench 15 MultiThreaded


SunSpider 1.0.2: link

The oldest web-based benchmark in this portion of our test is SunSpider. This is a very basic javascript algorithm tool, and ends up being more a measure of IPC and latency than anything else, with most high-performance CPUs scoring around about the same. The basic test is looped 10 times and the average taken. We run the basic test 4 times.

Web: SunSpider on Chrome 56

Mozilla Kraken 1.1: link

Kraken is another Javascript based benchmark, using the same test harness as SunSpider, but focusing on more stringent real-world use cases and libraries, such as audio processing and image filters. Again, the basic test is looped ten times, and we run the basic test four times.

Web: Mozilla Kraken 1.1 on Chrome 56

Google Octane 2.0: link

Along with Mozilla, as Google is a major browser developer, having peak JS performance is typically a critical asset when comparing against the other OS developers. In the same way that SunSpider is a very early JS benchmark, and Kraken is a bit newer, Octane aims to be more relevant to real workloads, especially in power constrained devices such as smartphones and tablets.

Web: Google Octane 2.0 on Chrome 56

WebXPRT 2015: link

While the previous three benchmarks do calculations in the background and represent a score, WebXPRT is designed to be a better interpretation of visual workloads that a professional user might have, such as browser based applications, graphing, image editing, sort/analysis, scientific analysis and financial tools.

Web: WebXPRT 15 on Chrome 56


7-Zip 9.2: link

One of the freeware compression tools that offers good scaling performance between processors is 7-Zip. It runs under an open-source licence, is fast, and easy to use tool for power users. We run the benchmark mode via the command line for four loops and take the output score.

Encoding: 7-Zip

WinRAR 5.40: link

For the 2017 test suite, we move to the latest version of WinRAR in our compression test. WinRAR in some quarters is more user-friendly that 7-Zip, hence its inclusion. Rather than use a benchmark mode as we did with 7-Zip, here we take a set of files representative of a generic stack (33 video files in 1.37 GB, 2834 smaller website files in 370 folders in 150 MB) of compressible and incompressible formats. The results shown are the time taken to encode the file. Due to DRAM caching, we run the test 10 times and take the average of the last five runs when the benchmark is in a steady state.

Encoding: WinRAR 5.40

AES Encoding

Algorithms using AES coding have spread far and wide as a ubiquitous tool for encryption. Again, this is another CPU limited test, and modern CPUs have special AES pathways to accelerate their performance. We often see scaling in both frequency and cores with this benchmark. We use the latest version of TrueCrypt and run its benchmark mode over 1GB of in-DRAM data. Results shown are the GB/s average of encryption and decryption.

Encoding: AES

HandBrake v1.0.2 H264 and HEVC: link

As mentioned above, video transcoding (both encode and decode) is a hot topic in performance metrics as more and more content is being created. First consideration is the standard in which the video is encoded, which can be lossless or lossy, trade performance for file-size, trade quality for file-size, or all of the above can increase encoding rates to help accelerate decoding rates. Alongside Google's favorite codec, VP9, there are two others that are taking hold: H264, the older codec, is practically everywhere and is designed to be optimized for 1080p video, and HEVC (or H265) that is aimed to provide the same quality as H264 but at a lower file-size (or better quality for the same size). HEVC is important as 4K is streamed over the air, meaning less bits need to be transferred for the same quality content.

Handbrake is a favored tool for transcoding, and so our test regime takes care of three areas.

Low Quality/Resolution H264: He we transcode a 640x266 H264 rip of a 2 hour film, and change the encoding from Main profile to High profile, using the very-fast preset.

Encoding: Handbrake H264 (LQ)

High Quality/Resolution H264: A similar test, but this time we take a ten-minute double 4K (3840x4320) file running at 60 Hz and transcode from Main to High, using the very-fast preset.

Encoding: Handbrake H264 (HQ)

HEVC Test: Using the same video in HQ, we change the resolution and codec of the original video from 4K60 in H264 into 4K60 HEVC.

Encoding: Handbrake HEVC (4K)


PCMark8: link

Despite originally coming out in 2008/2009, Futuremark has maintained PCMark8 to remain relevant in 2017. On the scale of complicated tasks, PCMark focuses more on the low-to-mid range of professional workloads, making it a good indicator for what people consider 'office' work. We run the benchmark from the commandline in 'conventional' mode, meaning C++ over OpenCL, to remove the graphics card from the equation and focus purely on the CPU. PCMark8 offers Home, Work and Creative workloads, with some software tests shared and others unique to each benchmark set.

Office: PCMark8 Creative (non-OpenCL)

Office: PCMark8 Home (non-OpenCL)

SYSmark 2014 SE: link

SYSmark is developed by Bapco, a consortium of industry CPU companies. The goal of SYSmark is to take stripped down versions of popular software, such as Photoshop and Onenote, and measure how long it takes to process certain tasks within that software. The end result is a score for each of the three segments (Office, Media, Data) as well as an overall score. Here a reference system (Core i3-6100, 4GB DDR3, 256GB SSD, Integrated HD 530 graphics) is used to provide a baseline score of 1000 in each test.

A note on context for these numbers. AMD left Bapco in the last two years, due to differences of opinion on how the benchmarking suites were chosen and AMD believed the tests are angled towards Intel processors and had optimizations to show bigger differences than what AMD felt was present. The following benchmarks are provided as data, but the conflict of opinion between the two companies on the validity of the benchmark is provided as context for the following numbers.


3D Particle Movement v1

3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz and IPC wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores. This is the original version, written in the style of a typical non-computer science student coding up an algorithm for their theoretical problem, and comes without any non-obvious optimizations not already performed by the compiler, such as false sharing.

Legacy: 3DPM v1 Single Threaded

Legacy: 3DPM v1 MultiThreaded

CineBench 11.5 and 10

Cinebench is a widely known benchmarking tool for measuring performance relative to MAXON's animation software Cinema 4D. Cinebench has been optimized over a decade and focuses on purely CPU horsepower, meaning if there is a discrepancy in pure throughput characteristics, Cinebench is likely to show that discrepancy. Arguably other software doesn't make use of all the tools available, so the real world relevance might purely be academic, but given our large database of data for Cinebench it seems difficult to ignore a small five-minute test. We run the modern version 15 in this test, as well as the older 11.5 and 10 due to our back data.

Legacy: CineBench 11.5 Single ThreadedLegacy: CineBench 11.5 MultiThreadedLegacy: CineBench 10 Single ThreadedLegacy: CineBench 10 MultiThreaded

x264 HD 3.0

Similarly, the x264 HD 3.0 package we use here is also kept for historic regressional data. The latest version is 5.0.1, and encodes a 1080p video clip into a high-quality x264 file. Version 3.0 only performs the same test on a 720p file, and in most circumstances the software performance hits its limit on high-end processors, but still works well for mainstream and low-end. Also, this version only takes a few minutes, whereas the latest can take over 90 minutes to run.

Legacy: x264 3.0 Pass 1Legacy: x264 3.0 Pass 2


example of a mid-game setup at our settings.

At both 1920x1080 and 4K resolutions, we run the same settings. Civilization 6 has sliders for MSAA, Performance Impact and Memory Impact. The latter two refer to detail and texture size respectively, and are rated between 0 (lowest) to 5 (extreme). We run our Civ6 benchmark in position four for performance (ultra) and 0 on memory, with MSAA set to 2x.

For reviews where we include 8K and 16K benchmarks (Civ6 allows us to benchmark extreme resolutions on any monitor) on our GTX 1080, we run the 8K tests similar to the 4K tests, but the 16K tests are set to the lowest option for Performance.

For all our results, we show the average frame rate at 1080p first. Mouse over the other graphs underneath to see 99th percentile frame rates and 'Time Under' graphs, as well as results for other resolutions. All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance

89130.png
 


For our benchmark, we run a fixed v2.11 version of the game due to some peculiarities of the splash screen added after the merger with the standalone Escalation expansion, and have an automated tool to call the benchmark on the command line. (Prior to v2.11, the benchmark also supported 8K/16K testing, however v2.11 has odd behavior which nukes this.)

At both 1920x1080 and 4K resolutions, we run the same settings. Ashes has dropdown options for MSAA, Light Quality, Object Quality, Shading Samples, Shadow Quality, Textures, and separate options for the terrain. There are several presents, from Very Low to Extreme: we run our benchmarks at Extreme settings, and take the frame-time output for our average, percentile, and time under analysis.

For all our results, we show the average frame rate at 1080p first. Mouse over the other graphs underneath to see 99th percentile frame rates and 'Time Under' graphs, as well as results for other resolutions. All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance

89142.png
 


The title has an in-game benchmark, for which we run with an automated script implement the graphics settings, select the benchmark, and parse the frame-time output which is dumped on the drive. The graphics settings include standard options such as Graphical Quality, Lighting, Mesh, Motion Blur, Shadow Quality, Textures, Vegetation Range, Depth of Field, Transparency and Tessellation. There are standard presets as well.

We run the benchmark at 1080p and a native 4K, using our 4K monitors, at the Ultra preset. Results are averaged across four runs and we report the average frame rate, 99th percentile frame rate, and time under analysis. 

For all our results, we show the average frame rate at 1080p first. Mouse over the other graphs underneath to see 99th percentile frame rates and 'Time Under' graphs, as well as results for other resolutions. All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance

89156.png
 


#1 Geothermal Valley

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance

89161.png
 


#2 Prophet's Tomb 

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance

89170.png
 

#3 Spine of the Mountain 

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance

89172.png
 


The graphics settings for Rocket League come in four broad, generic settings: Low, Medium, High and High FXAA. There are advanced settings in place for shadows and details; however, for these tests, we keep to the generic settings. For both 1920x1080 and 4K resolutions, we test at the High preset with an unlimited frame cap.

For all our results, we show the average frame rate at 1080p first. Mouse over the other graphs underneath to see 99th percentile frame rates and 'Time Under' graphs, as well as results for other resolutions. All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance

89181.png
 


There are no presets for the graphics options on GTA, allowing the user to adjust options such as population density and distance scaling on sliders, but others such as texture/shadow/shader/water quality from Low to Very High. Other options include MSAA, soft shadows, post effects, shadow resolution and extended draw distance options. There is a handy option at the top which shows how much video memory the options are expected to consume, with obvious repercussions if a user requests more video memory than is present on the card (although there’s no obvious indication if you have a low end GPU with lots of GPU memory, like an R7 240 4GB).

To that end, we run the benchmark at 1920x1080 using an average of Very High on the settings, and also at 4K using High on most of them. We take the average results of four runs, reporting frame rate averages, 99th percentiles, and our time under analysis.

For all our results, we show the average frame rate at 1080p first. Mouse over the other graphs underneath to see 99th percentile frame rates and 'Time Under' graphs, as well as results for other resolutions. All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance

89184.png
 


Power Consumption

For our power consumption readings, we run a Prime 95 load and slowly ramp up the number of threads in play, taking power data from the internal CPU registers that report for when turbo modes or thermal modes should activate. Depending on the CPU access, we can get data that varies from the full package down to individual cores, uncore, integrated graphics and DRAM controllers.

For the Ryzen CPUs, the API pulls out the total package power consumption first.

 Power: Total Package (Idle)Power: Total Package (1T)Power: Total Package (Full Load)

At idle, all the CPUs are pretty much equivalent. The cores are fully idle here, leaving the rest of the chip active enough for tick-over. As we ramp up the load, the higher-frequency Ryzen CPUs move towards their 65W TDP, with the Ryzen 3 1300X almost being spot on at 64.2W. The Intel CPUs are clocked higher, but only have two cores to contend with.  The Ryzen 3 1200 is clocked lower than the Ryzen 3 1300X, hitting a better efficiency point in the Zen design. This ultimately bodes well for upcoming quad-core SKUs in laptops.

Power: Cores Only (1T Load)Power: Cores Only (Full Load)

One of the odd things about the power consumption of the Ryzen 3 CPUs is the difference between how much power the cores internally measure compared to the full power consumption of the package measured as a whole, including the Infinity Fabric, DRAM controllers, IO and such. For the Ryzen 3 1200 for example, at full load the package has a power consumption of 40.43 W total, but the cores only count for 23.05W, leaving 17.38W on the table for the non-core elements in the chip. If we compare that to the Ryzen 5 1500X, we have 68.79W for the package and 49.69W for the cores, a 19.1W difference. For the Ryzen 7 1700X, it becomes 81.51W for the package and 62.10W for the cores, a 19.4W difference.



For the multi-thread performance:


AMD CPU의 경우 1300X 및 1500X는 기본 / 터보 주파수 (3400/3700 대 3500/3700)에 가까워 거의 같으며 Ryzen 3 1200은 3100/3400에서 약 13 % 낮아집니다.

Intel CPU는 3.5 GHz의 Pentium G4560과 Core i3의 3.9 GHz, 4.0 GHz 및 4.1 GHz에서 차별화 된 커브를 보여줍니다. Core i5 7400의 기저 주파수는 3.0 GHz이고 터보는 3.5 GHz입니다.


Ryzen 3 1200은 다시 -12% 정도로 낮아지는 반면 동시 다중 스레딩을 사용하는 Ryzen 5 1500X는 1300X보다 +40% 증가합니다. Ryzen 3 1200과 Core i3 - 7300은 밀접하게 매치되었지만 Ryzen은 ~ 40달러 저렴하게 가격에 이긴다하더라도 모든 듀얼 코어 인텔 제품은 AMD의 쿼드 코어에 비해 뒤쳐져 있습니다. Core i5-7400은 Ryzen 3 1300X와 경쟁하며 쿼드 코어이므로 IPC가 높기 때문에 주파수는 낮지만 인텔은 $50 + 프리미엄으로 제공됩니다.

결합 된 올인원 그래프의 경우 혼합 된 작업 부하 데이터를 포함하고 단일 : 다중 : 혼합 스레드 작업 부하에 대해 결과에 40:50:10을 가중했습니다.


첫째, Ryzen 3 1200은 매력적인 옵션이 아닙니다. 펜티엄의 +2 -3%을 수행하지만 30달러가 더 비쌉니다. 코어 i3-7100은 10달러 이하의 비용으로 8%를 상회합니다.

다음 Ryzen 3 1300X는 코어 i3 - 7300 / 7320과 코어 i5 - 7400에 비해 달러당 성능에 분명히 승리합니다. Core i3 - 7100과 비교했을때는 10 - 15% 정도의 성능 향상을 보였는데 이는 비용의 10% 미만입니다. 예산에 따라 각 옵션은 매력적인 옵션일 수 있습니다.


출처 - http://www.anandtech.com






  1. Update

    애플 아이폰X vs 안드로이드 스마트폰 성능 대결.2

    아이폰X의 폰아레나(www.phonearena.com) 리뷰 입니다. 아이폰X 스펙 아이폰X 제스처 테스트 아이폰X 동영상 테스트 아이폰X, 아이폰8 CPU / GPU 성능 출처 - https://www.phonearena.com/r...
    Date2017.11.18 CategoryETC Reply3 Views604
    Read More
  2. 아이폰X vs 갤럭시 노트8 vs 픽셀2 성능 대결.1

    애플 아이폰X vs 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 vs 구글 픽셀2 스마트폰의 간단한 성능 비교 자료입니다. 2분짜리 4K 비디오 영상을 인코딩하며 CPU 성능 측정 결과 아이폰X는 42초에 완료, 픽셀2는 2분 55초, 삼성 갤럭시 노트8은 3분 3초가 소요...
    Date2017.11.11 CategoryETC Reply4 Views897
    Read More
  3. 엔비디아 지포스 GTX 1070 Ti 심층 리뷰 : 수상한 시대에__

    Brad Chacos | PCWorld 지포스 GTX 1070 Ti 리뷰는 AMD의 라데온 베가 56이 없었더라면 하지 않았을 리뷰이다. 엔비디아의 GTX 10 시리즈는 2016년 5월, 그러니까 지금으로부터 1년 반쯤 전에 지포스 GTX 1070과 GTX 1080의 출시와 함께 첫선을 보였다. G...
    Date2017.11.06 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views2273
    Read More
  4. 커피레이크 i5 8600k, 8400, i3 8350K, 8100 vs AMD 라이젠 승부

    화제의 인텔 커피레이크 시리즈 벤치마크 입니다. 하단 게시물은 8700K 위주이기 때문에 i5 8600K, i5 8400, i3 8350K, i3 8100 성능이 포함된 자료를 링크해 드립니다. 벤치마크 출처 - https://www.computerbase.de 커피레이크와 AMD 라이젠 외형 ...
    Date2017.10.22 CategoryCPU Reply3 Views2753
    Read More
  5. 인텔 커피레이크 8700K 리뷰, 새로운 시대의 왕권 강화

    인텔이 마침내 프로세서 시장의 새로운 시대를 알리는 커피레이크 시리즈를 발표했다. 커피레이크는 물리 6코어를 i5 라인으로 투입함으로써 긴 시간동안 i5의 메인스트림이였던 4코어를 넘어선 본격적인 6코어 시대로 진입하는 중요한 이정표가 ...
    Date2017.10.06 CategoryCPU Reply7 Views6619
    Read More
  6. 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 리뷰, 안드로이드 최상급 스마트폰

    플레이웨어즈(http://playwares.com) 사이트에 V30 리뷰에 이어 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 리뷰가 업데이트가 되어 링크해 드립니다. 자세한 리뷰 내용은 아래 링크에서 확인하시기 바랍니다. 출처 - http://playwares.com/mobilereview/55266554 ---------...
    Date2017.09.30 CategoryETC Reply3 Views652
    Read More
  7. 인텔 18코어 Core i9-7980X, 16코어 Core i9-7960X 성능 확인

    Gordon Mah Ung | PCWorld 인텔이 다시 시장을 강타했다. 인텔은 몇 개월 동안 자사 영역을 잠식한 AMD 라이젠 쓰레드리퍼(Threadripper)에 대항할 강력한 18코어 코어 i9-7980X와 16코어 코어 i8-7960X를 출시했다. 불의의 일격을 당한 ‘골리앗’ 인텔이 ...
    Date2017.09.29 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views1626
    Read More
  8. LG V30 리뷰, 현존 안드로이드 최고 스마트폰

    플레이웨어즈(http://playwares.com) 사이트에 LG의 최신 스마트폰 V30 리뷰가 업데이트 되어 링크해 드립니다. 자세한 리뷰 내용은 아래 링크에서 확인하시기 바랍니다. 출처 - http://playwares.com/mobilereview/55206575 ----------------------...
    Date2017.09.23 CategoryETC Reply3 Views1253
    Read More
  9. 화제의 배틀그라운드 CPU 성능비교, 인텔 7700K vs 라이젠 1800X

    국내 커뮤니티 사이트의 회원이 실제 게임 영상과 캡처 화면으로 테스트한 세부적인 자료가 있어 소개합니다. 출처 - http://www.coolenjoy.net/bbs/27/1609823?page=4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------...
    Date2017.09.02 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views2503
    Read More
  10. 라데온RX 베가 56 & 64 성능 확인 (Radeon RX Vega 64 & 56)

    AMD Radeon RX Series Specification Comparison AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 LiquidAMD Radeon RX Vega 64AMD Radeon RX Vega 56AMD Radeon R9 Fury XStream Processors4096 (64 CUs)4096 (64 CUs)3584 (56 CUs)4096 (64 CUs)Texture Units256256224256ROPs6464646...
    Date2017.08.15 CategoryGPU Reply6 Views3739
    Read More
  11. AMD 라데온 베가 RX 64 8GB vs. 지포스GTX 1080 성능비교

    AMD가 새로 발표한 플래그십 GPU, 라데온 베가RX 64의 탐스 하드웨어 리뷰입니다. 베가 외형 라데온 베가는 AMD의 새로운 아키텍처로 설계된 GPU 입니다. 베가 아키텍처 상세 내...
    Date2017.08.15 CategoryGPU Reply4 Views1525
    Read More
  12. 공식) AMD 라이젠 스레드리퍼 1950X 성능 확인

    Threadripper 1950X Core i9-7900X Threadripper 1920X Core i7-7820X Threadripper 1900X Price $999 $999 $799 $599 $549 Interface/Chipset TR4 / X399 LGA2066 / X299 TR4 / X399 LGA2066 / X299 TR4 / X399 Cores/Threads 16/32 ...
    Date2017.08.11 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views1914
    Read More
  13. AMD 라이젠3 1300X, 1200 vs. 인텔 i3 7100 / G4560 대결

    AMD Ryzen SKUs Cores/ ThreadsBase/ TurboXFRL3TDPRetail 7/27CoolerRyzen 7 1800X8/163.6/4.0+10016 MB95 W$419-Ryzen 7 1700X8/163.4/3.8+10016 MB95 W$299-Ryzen 7 17008/163.0/3.7+5016 MB65 W$279Spire RGBRyzen 5 1600X6/123.6/4.0+10016 MB95 W$...
    Date2017.07.29 CategoryCPU Reply3 Views4427
    Read More
  14. AMD 라데온 베가 프론티어 에디션 16GB 성능 공개

    Vega Frontier EditionTitan XpGTX 1080 TiTitan X (Pascal)GTX 1080TITAN XGTX 980R9 Fury XR9 FuryGPUVegaGP102GP102GP102GP104GM200GM204Fiji XTFiji ProGPU Cores409638403584358425603072204840963584Base Clock1382 MHz1480...
    Date2017.07.01 CategoryGPU Reply5 Views5403
    Read More
  15. 인텔 스카이레이크X 7900X, 7820X, 7800X, 카비레이크X 7740 테스트

    마침내 등장한 인텔 스카이레이크X 7900X, 7820X, 7800X, 카비레이크X 7740 테스트 출처 - http://www.anandtech.com Skylake-X Processors (Low Core Count Chips) Core i7-7800XCore i7-7820XCore i9-7900XCores / Threads6/128/1610/20Ba...
    Date2017.06.25 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views3521
    Read More
  16. 게이밍 환경에서 AMD 라이젠 vs. 인텔 CPU 성능 비교

    게이밍 환경에서 인텔 VS AMD CPU 성능 비교 / https://www.techpowerup.com AMD 선수 : 라이젠 1800X - 1700X - 1700 - 1600X - 1600 - 1500X - 1400 인텔 선수 : 코어 7700K - 6700K - 7600K - 7500 - 7400 - 7100 - G4560 [ 테스트 시스템 ] ...
    Date2017.06.11 CategoryCPU Reply8 Views16483
    Read More
  17. 5~6만원선 140mm 슬림 타워 CPU 쿨러 4종 벤치마크

    140mm Tower CPU CoolersProductFan(s)Fan Speed (RPM)Height (mm/in)Current Retail PricingNoctua NH-U14S1 × 140 mm1500 RPM165 mm / 6.5”$65Phanteks PH-TC14S1 × 140 mm1300 RPM160 mm / 6.3”$50ThermalRight True Spirit 140 Direct1 × 140 mm1600 RPM16...
    Date2017.05.27 CategoryETC Reply0 Views1447
    Read More
  18. 갤럭시 S8 Vs. LG G6 카메라 성능 비교 (ITworld)

    Jason Cross, Adam Patrick Murray | Greenbot 지난 해, Greenbot은 삼성 갤럭시 S7, LG V20, 아이폰 7을 누르고 구글 픽셀을 스마트폰 카메라 1위로 선정했다. 그리고 지난 달, 픽셀은 LG G6를 상대로 방어전을 치렀으나 패배하고 말았다. 이제 새로운 ...
    Date2017.05.13 CategoryETC Reply3 Views1293
    Read More
  19. AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB Review, Polaris 12 GPU

    AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB Review - http://www.tomshardware.com Radeon RX 550 Radeon R7 260X Radeon RX 460 Shader Units 512896 896ROPs16 16 16 GPUPolaris 12 Bonaire Polaris 11 Transistors2.2 Billion 2.08 Billion 3 Billion Memory Size 2GB2GB...
    Date2017.05.01 CategoryGPU Reply3 Views1452
    Read More
  20. AMD 라데온RX 580 & RX 570 리뷰 : A Second Path to Polaris

    AMD가 새로 발표한 RX 580 & RX 570 리뷰 AMD Radeon RX Series Specification Comparison AMD Radeon RX 580 (8GB)AMD Radeon RX 570AMD Radeon RX 480 (8GB)AMD Radeon RX 470Stream Processors2304 (36 CUs)2048 (32 CUs)2304 (36 CUs)2048 (32...
    Date2017.04.23 CategoryGPU Reply6 Views3882
    Read More
  21. AMD 라이젠5 1600X, 1500X 성능 vs 인텔 7600k

    Ryzen 5는 선행 발매된 Ryzen 7의 하위 브랜드로 ZEN 마이크로 아키텍처를 바탕으로 14nm FinFET 프로세스에서 제조된 CPU 제품군이다. Ryzen 5의 라인업에는 6코어 CPU와 4코어 CPU가 혼재하는데 이번 테스트의 Ryzen 5 1600X는 6코어 12스레드 CP...
    Date2017.04.16 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views6841
    Read More
  22. 퀄컴 스냅드래곤 835 vs 애플 A10 AP 성능 비교

    Qualcomm Snapdragon SoCs: Three GenerationsSoCSnapdragon 835 (MSM8998)Snapdragon 820 / 821 (MSM8996 / MSM8996 Pro)Snapdragon 810 (MSM8994)CPU4x Kryo 280 Performance @ 2.45GHz 4x Kryo 280 Efficiency @ 1.90GHz2x Kryo @ 2.15GHz / 2.34GHz ...
    Date2017.04.08 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views1378
    Read More
  23. 라이젠 1800X+지포스GTX 1080TI 조합 vs 인텔 조합 게임 대결

    신형 지포스GTX 1080TI와 8코어 16스레드 CPU 조합 성능 테스트 선수 1번은 인텔의 8코어 16스레드 Core i7 5960X + 지포스GTX 1080TI 조합 선수 2번은 AMD의 8코어 16스레드 라이젠 1800X + 지포스GTX 1080TI 조합 각각의 조합으로 여러 부문에서 성능...
    Date2017.03.11 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views28985
    Read More
  24. 지포스GTX 1080TI 성능, 파스칼 타이탄X보다 상위

    엔비디아가 새롭게 발표한 지포스GTX 1080TI 리뷰 GeForce GTX 980 TiRadeon R9 Fury XGeForce GTX 1070GeForce GTX 1080GeForce GTX 1080 TiGeForce Titan XPShader Units281640961920256035843584ROPs966464648896Graphics ProcessorGM200FijiGP104...
    Date2017.03.10 CategoryGPU Reply2 Views3126
    Read More
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23 Next
/ 23