NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro K2000 und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 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 K2000
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 5 Monat(e) später
- 2.7x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 51 Watt vs 140 Watt
- 666.7x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 4000 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s
Startdatum | 1 March 2013 vs 6 September 2012 |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 51 Watt vs 140 Watt |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 4000 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660
- Etwa 3% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:980 MHz vs 954 MHz
- 2.6x mehr Texturfüllrate: 78.4 billion / sec vs 30.53 GTexel / s
- 2.5x mehr Leitungssysteme: 960 vs 384
- 2.7x bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 1,981 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
- 2.5x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4017 vs 1578
- Etwa 26% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 487 vs 385
- 2.8x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 11364 vs 4071
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 30.505 vs 14.332
- 2.7x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 705.293 vs 265.424
- 2.8x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.085 vs 1.093
- 2.4x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.416 vs 15.009
- Etwa 64% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 62.69 vs 38.219
- Etwa 46% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3581 vs 2446
- 2.3x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3690 vs 1631
- Etwa 70% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3365 vs 1974
- Etwa 46% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3581 vs 2446
- 2.3x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3690 vs 1631
- Etwa 70% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3365 vs 1974
Spezifikationen | |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 980 MHz vs 954 MHz |
Texturfüllrate | 78.4 billion / sec vs 30.53 GTexel / s |
Leitungssysteme | 960 vs 384 |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 1,981 gflops vs 732.7 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 4017 vs 1578 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 487 vs 385 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 11364 vs 4071 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 30.505 vs 14.332 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 705.293 vs 265.424 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.085 vs 1.093 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.416 vs 15.009 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 62.69 vs 38.219 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3581 vs 2446 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3690 vs 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3365 vs 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3581 vs 2446 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3690 vs 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3365 vs 1974 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660
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 K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1578 | 4017 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 385 | 487 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 | 11364 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.332 | 30.505 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 265.424 | 705.293 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.093 | 3.085 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.009 | 35.416 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.219 | 62.69 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 | 3581 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1631 | 3690 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1974 | 3365 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 | 3581 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1631 | 3690 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1974 | 3365 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 1307 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Kepler | Kepler |
Codename | GK107 | GK106 |
Startdatum | 1 March 2013 | 6 September 2012 |
Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $599 | $229 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1206 | 740 |
Jetzt kaufen | $164.99 | $349.99 |
Typ | Workstation | Desktop |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 11.74 | 14.35 |
Technische Info |
||
Kerntaktfrequenz | 954 MHz | 980 MHz |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 732.7 gflops | 1,981 gflops |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Leitungssysteme | 384 | 960 |
Texturfüllrate | 30.53 GTexel / s | 78.4 billion / sec |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 51 Watt | 140 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 1,270 million | 2,540 million |
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1033 MHz | |
CUDA-Kerne | 960 | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI..., 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Audioeingang für HDMI | Internal | |
G-SYNC-Unterstützung | ||
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Maximale VGA-Auflösung | 2048x1536 | |
Multi-Monitor-Unterstützung | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Länge | 202 mm | 9.5" (24.1 cm) |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | One 6-pin |
Busunterstützung | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Höhe | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Speicherbandbreite | 64 GB / s | 144.2 GB / s |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 128 Bit | 192-bit GDDR5 |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 4000 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
Speichertyp | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologien |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
CUDA | ||
FXAA | ||
GPU Boost | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA |