NVIDIA Quadro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro M4000 und NVIDIA Quadro K2000 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 M4000
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 2 Jahr(e) 4 Monat(e) später
- 2.6x mehr Texturfüllrate: 80.39 GTexel / s vs 30.53 GTexel / s
- 4.3x mehr Leitungssysteme: 1664 vs 384
- 3.5x bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 2,573 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
- 4x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 8 GB vs 2 GB
- Etwa 50% höhere Speichertaktfrequenz: 6008 MHz vs 4000 MHz
- 4.2x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6680 vs 1578
- Etwa 75% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 673 vs 385
- 4.5x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 18372 vs 4071
- 4.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 65.548 vs 14.332
- 2.8x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 732.046 vs 265.424
- 5x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.453 vs 1.093
- Etwa 18% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 17.725 vs 15.009
- 5.7x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 217.357 vs 38.219
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6291 vs 2446
- 2.3x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3685 vs 1631
- Etwa 69% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3332 vs 1974
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6291 vs 2446
- 2.3x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3685 vs 1631
- Etwa 69% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3332 vs 1974
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 29 June 2015 vs 1 March 2013 |
Texturfüllrate | 80.39 GTexel / s vs 30.53 GTexel / s |
Leitungssysteme | 1664 vs 384 |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 2,573 gflops vs 732.7 gflops |
Maximale Speichergröße | 8 GB vs 2 GB |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 6008 MHz vs 4000 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6680 vs 1578 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 673 vs 385 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 18372 vs 4071 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.548 vs 14.332 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 732.046 vs 265.424 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.453 vs 1.093 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 17.725 vs 15.009 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 217.357 vs 38.219 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6291 vs 2446 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3685 vs 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3332 vs 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6291 vs 2446 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3685 vs 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3332 vs 1974 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro K2000
- Etwa 23% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:954 MHz vs 773 MHz
- 2.4x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 51 Watt vs 120 Watt
Kerntaktfrequenz | 954 MHz vs 773 MHz |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 51 Watt vs 120 Watt |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
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 M4000 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6680 | 1578 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 673 | 385 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 18372 | 4071 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.548 | 14.332 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 732.046 | 265.424 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.453 | 1.093 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 17.725 | 15.009 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 217.357 | 38.219 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6291 | 2446 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3685 | 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3332 | 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6291 | 2446 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3685 | 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3332 | 1974 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 680 | 0 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
Codename | GM204 | GK107 |
Startdatum | 29 June 2015 | 1 March 2013 |
Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $791 | $599 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 534 | 1206 |
Jetzt kaufen | $765.93 | $164.99 |
Typ | Workstation | Workstation |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 10.68 | 11.74 |
Technische Info |
||
Kerntaktfrequenz | 773 MHz | 954 MHz |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 2,573 gflops | 732.7 gflops |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Leitungssysteme | 1664 | 384 |
Texturfüllrate | 80.39 GTexel / s | 30.53 GTexel / s |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 120 Watt | 51 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 5,200 million | 1,270 million |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | 4x DisplayPort, DP DP DP DP 3-pin Stereo | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Multi-Display-Synchronisation | Quadro Sync | |
Anzahl der gleichzeitigen Anzeigen | 4 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Länge | 241 mm | 202 mm |
SLI-Optionen | 1 | |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 1 x 6-pin | None |
Breite | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Shader Model | 5 | |
Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 8 GB | 2 GB |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 6008 MHz | 4000 MHz |
Speichertyp | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Speicherbandbreite | 64 GB / s | |
Technologien |
||
3D Vision Pro | ||
High-Performance Video I/O6 | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Desktop Management |