NVIDIA Quadro M4000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro M4000M und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 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 M4000M
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 3 Jahr(e) 3 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 3% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1013 MHz vs 980 MHz
- Etwa 1% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 2,496 gflops vs 2,459.5 gflops
- Etwa 70% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 100 Watt vs 170 Watt
- 2x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- 835.3x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 5012 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s
- Etwa 15% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6146 vs 5345
- Etwa 28% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 19918 vs 15511
- Etwa 95% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 81.104 vs 41.613
- Etwa 27% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1235.338 vs 971.208
- Etwa 44% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.157 vs 4.281
- Etwa 69% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 68.443 vs 40.404
- 2.9x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 251.464 vs 86.208
- Etwa 8% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7602 vs 7038
- Etwa 8% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7602 vs 7038
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 18 August 2015 vs 10 May 2012 |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1013 MHz vs 980 MHz |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 2,496 gflops vs 2,459.5 gflops |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 100 Watt vs 170 Watt |
| Maximale Speichergröße | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 5012 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6146 vs 5345 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19918 vs 15511 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 81.104 vs 41.613 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1235.338 vs 971.208 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.157 vs 4.281 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 68.443 vs 40.404 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 251.464 vs 86.208 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7602 vs 7038 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7602 vs 7038 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670
- Etwa 1% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:980 MHz vs 975 MHz
- Etwa 31% höhere Texturfüllrate: 102.5 billion / sec vs 78 GTexel / s
- Etwa 5% höhere Leitungssysteme: 1344 vs 1,280
- Etwa 30% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 537 vs 413
- Etwa 34% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3686 vs 2749
- Etwa 9% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3361 vs 3093
- Etwa 34% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3686 vs 2749
- Etwa 9% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3361 vs 3093
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 980 MHz vs 975 MHz |
| Texturfüllrate | 102.5 billion / sec vs 78 GTexel / s |
| Leitungssysteme | 1344 vs 1,280 |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 537 vs 413 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3686 vs 2749 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3361 vs 3093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3686 vs 2749 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3361 vs 3093 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670
| 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 M4000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6146 | 5345 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 413 | 537 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19918 | 15511 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 81.104 | 41.613 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1235.338 | 971.208 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.157 | 4.281 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 68.443 | 40.404 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 251.464 | 86.208 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7602 | 7038 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2749 | 3686 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3093 | 3361 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7602 | 7038 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2749 | 3686 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3093 | 3361 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 1839 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA Quadro M4000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Codename | GM204 | GK104 |
| Startdatum | 18 August 2015 | 10 May 2012 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 551 | 554 |
| Typ | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $399 | |
| Jetzt kaufen | $474.99 | |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 13.20 | |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1013 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 975 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 2,496 gflops | 2,459.5 gflops |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 1,280 | 1344 |
| Texturfüllrate | 78 GTexel / s | 102.5 billion / sec |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 100 Watt | 170 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 5,200 million | 3,540 million |
| CUDA-Kerne | 1344 | |
| Maximale GPU-Temperatur | 97 °C | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI..., 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
| Audioeingang für HDMI | Internal | |
| G-SYNC-Unterstützung | ||
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximale VGA-Auflösung | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi-Monitor-Unterstützung | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Laptop-Größe | large | |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | Two 6-pin |
| Busunterstützung | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Höhe | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
| Länge | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | |
| SLI-Optionen | 3-way | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Speicherbandbreite | 160 GB / s | 192.2 GB / s |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 256 Bit | 256-bit GDDR5 |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 5012 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
| Speichertyp | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | |
Technologien |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Gaming | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| FXAA | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| SLI | ||
| TXAA | ||

