NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile und NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Videokarten für alle bekannten Merkmale in den folgenden Kategorien: Essenzielles, Technische Info, Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse, Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen, API-Unterstützung, Speicher, Technologien. Benchmark-Videokarten Leistungsanalyse: 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 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 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 9 Jahr(e) 2 Monat(e) später
- 244x mehr Texturfüllrate: 67.65 GTexel/s vs 277.3 GTexel / s
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 8 nm vs 16 nm
- Etwa 33% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 75 Watt vs 100 Watt
- Etwa 3% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 14.641 vs 14.206
- Etwa 2% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 15760 vs 15489
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8923 vs 3409
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 8045 vs 3077
- Etwa 2% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 15760 vs 15489
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8923 vs 3409
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 8045 vs 3077
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 2021 vs 1 October 2016 |
| Texturfüllrate | 67.65 GTexel/s vs 277.3 GTexel / s |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 8 nm vs 16 nm |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 100 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 14.641 vs 14.206 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15760 vs 15489 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8923 vs 3409 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8045 vs 3077 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15760 vs 15489 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8923 vs 3409 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8045 vs 3077 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro P5000
- 2.3x mehr Kerntaktfrequenz: 1607 MHz vs 712 MHz
- Etwa 64% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1733 MHz vs 1057 MHz
- 4x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 16 GB vs 4 GB
- 6x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 9016 MHz vs 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective)
- Etwa 85% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 12640 vs 6831
- Etwa 67% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 673 vs 403
- Etwa 4% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 52508 vs 50663
- Etwa 35% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 223.558 vs 165.993
- Etwa 36% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2698.914 vs 1980.866
- Etwa 4% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 140.845 vs 135.641
- Etwa 24% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 927.006 vs 745.481
- 3.2x bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1330 vs 421
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1607 MHz vs 712 MHz |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1733 MHz vs 1057 MHz |
| Maximale Speichergröße | 16 GB vs 4 GB |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 9016 MHz vs 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 12640 vs 6831 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 673 vs 403 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 52508 vs 50663 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 223.558 vs 165.993 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2698.914 vs 1980.866 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 140.845 vs 135.641 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 927.006 vs 745.481 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1330 vs 421 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P5000
| 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 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 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile | NVIDIA Quadro P5000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6831 | 12640 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 403 | 673 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 50663 | 52508 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 165.993 | 223.558 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1980.866 | 2698.914 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 14.641 | 14.206 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 135.641 | 140.845 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 745.481 | 927.006 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15760 | 15489 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8923 | 3409 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8045 | 3077 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15760 | 15489 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8923 | 3409 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8045 | 3077 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 421 | 1330 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile | NVIDIA Quadro P5000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Ampere | Pascal |
| Codename | GA107 | GP104 |
| Startdatum | 2021 | 1 October 2016 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 248 | 247 |
| Typ | Laptop | Workstation |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $2,499 | |
| Jetzt kaufen | $1,699.99 | |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 8.38 | |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1057 MHz | 1733 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 712 MHz | 1607 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 8 nm | 16 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 67.65 GFLOPS (1:64) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 4.329 TFLOPS (1:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 4.329 TFLOPS | |
| Leitungssysteme | 2048 | 2048 |
| Pixel-Füllrate | 42.28 GPixel/s | |
| Texturfüllrate | 67.65 GTexel/s | 277.3 GTexel / s |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 8,873 gflops | |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 7,200 million | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.4 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | 1x 8-pin |
| Breite | IGP | |
| Länge | 267 mm | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.2 | 12 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 5.1 |
| Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Speicherbandbreite | 192 GB/s | 192 GB / s |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 9016 MHz |
| Speichertyp | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | |
Technologien |
||
| 3D Stereo | ||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
