SIS Mirage M661FX vs Radeon R4 (Beema)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1172not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN 1.1 (2014)no data
GPU code nameBeemano data
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date29 April 2014 (12 years ago)1 July 2003 (22 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores128no data
Core clock speed800 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data133 MHz
Manufacturing process technology28 nmno data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Shared memory++

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)no data

Pros & cons summary


Recency 29 April 2014 1 July 2003

R4 (Beema) has an age advantage of 10 years.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R4 (Beema) and SIS Mirage M661FX. We've got no test results to judge.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 79 votes

Rate Radeon R4 (Beema) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate SIS Mirage M661FX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R4 (Beema) or SIS Mirage M661FX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.