NVIDIA Quadro 3000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro 3000M und NVIDIA GeForce GT 430 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 Quadro 3000M
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 4 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 61% höhere Texturfüllrate: 18 GTexel / s vs 11.2 billion / sec
- 2.5x mehr Leitungssysteme: 240 vs 96
- Etwa 61% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 432.0 gflops vs 268.8 gflops
- 2x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- 2.8x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 2500 MHz vs 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)
- Etwa 66% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 995 vs 600
- Etwa 57% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 312 vs 199
- Etwa 68% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 3764 vs 2240
- 3.2x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 10.95 vs 3.396
- 3.7x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 325.007 vs 87.094
- 3.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.865 vs 0.243
- 2.8x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 13.794 vs 5.005
- 7.4x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 27.961 vs 3.764
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 22 February 2011 vs 11 October 2010 |
Texturfüllrate | 18 GTexel / s vs 11.2 billion / sec |
Leitungssysteme | 240 vs 96 |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 432.0 gflops vs 268.8 gflops |
Maximale Speichergröße | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 2500 MHz vs 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 995 vs 600 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 312 vs 199 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3764 vs 2240 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.95 vs 3.396 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 325.007 vs 87.094 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.865 vs 0.243 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.794 vs 5.005 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 27.961 vs 3.764 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
- 3.1x mehr Kerntaktfrequenz: 1400 MHz vs 450 MHz
- Etwa 53% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 49 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 5x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1080 vs 218
- 4.6x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1713 vs 374
- 3x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1624 vs 543
- 5x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1080 vs 218
- 4.6x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1713 vs 374
- 3x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1624 vs 543
Spezifikationen | |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1400 MHz vs 450 MHz |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 49 Watt vs 75 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1080 vs 218 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1713 vs 374 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1624 vs 543 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1080 vs 218 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1713 vs 374 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1624 vs 543 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
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) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro 3000M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 430 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 995 | 600 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 312 | 199 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3764 | 2240 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.95 | 3.396 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 325.007 | 87.094 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.865 | 0.243 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.794 | 5.005 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 27.961 | 3.764 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 218 | 1080 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 374 | 1713 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 543 | 1624 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 218 | 1080 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 374 | 1713 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 543 | 1624 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA Quadro 3000M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 430 | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Fermi | Fermi |
Codename | GF104 | GF108 |
Startdatum | 22 February 2011 | 11 October 2010 |
Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $398.96 | $79 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1499 | 1500 |
Jetzt kaufen | $199.95 | $35.99 |
Typ | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 7.98 | 20.89 |
Technische Info |
||
Kerntaktfrequenz | 450 MHz | 1400 MHz |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 432.0 gflops | 268.8 gflops |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 40 nm | 40 nm |
Leitungssysteme | 240 | 96 |
Texturfüllrate | 18 GTexel / s | 11.2 billion / sec |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 75 Watt | 49 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 1,950 million | 585 million |
CUDA-Cores pro GPU | 96 | |
Maximale GPU-Temperatur | 98 °C | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA, HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI |
Audioeingang für HDMI | Internal | |
HDMI | ||
Maximale VGA-Auflösung | 2048x1536 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop-Größe | large | |
Busunterstützung | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | |
Höhe | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | |
Länge | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Speicherbandbreite | 80.0 GB / s | 25.6 - 28.8 GB / s |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 2500 MHz | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
Speichertyp | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | |
Technologien |
||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA |