NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro P2200 und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Videokarten für alle bekannten Merkmale in den folgenden Kategorien: Essenzielles, Technische Info, Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse, Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen, API-Unterstützung, Speicher. 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 P2200
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 3 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 60% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 75 Watt vs 120 Watt
- Etwa 11% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 892 vs 807
- 3.2x bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3404 vs 1061
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 10 June 2019 vs 22 February 2019 |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 120 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 vs 807 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 vs 1061 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
- Etwa 50% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1500 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- Etwa 19% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1770 MHz vs 1493 MHz
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 12 nm vs 16 nm
- Etwa 38% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 12900 vs 9372
- Etwa 89% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 61100 vs 32343
- Etwa 72% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 208.608 vs 121.124
- Etwa 31% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2573.643 vs 1958.592
- Etwa 95% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 16.447 vs 8.452
- Etwa 21% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 145.886 vs 120.742
- Etwa 81% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 926.614 vs 510.941
- Etwa 48% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 16952 vs 11437
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3355 vs 1676
- Etwa 48% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 16952 vs 11437
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3355 vs 1676
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1500 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1770 MHz vs 1493 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm vs 16 nm |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 12900 vs 9372 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 61100 vs 32343 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 208.608 vs 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2573.643 vs 1958.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 16.447 vs 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 145.886 vs 120.742 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 926.614 vs 510.941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 16952 vs 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3718 vs 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 vs 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 16952 vs 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3718 vs 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 vs 1676 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
| 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 Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9372 | 12900 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 | 807 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 | 61100 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | 208.608 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | 2573.643 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | 16.447 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | 145.886 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | 926.614 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 | 16952 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 3718 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1676 | 3355 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 | 16952 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 3718 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1676 | 3355 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 | 1061 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Pascal | Turing |
| Codename | GP106 | TU116 |
| Startdatum | 10 June 2019 | 22 February 2019 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 307 | 221 |
| Typ | Workstation | Desktop |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $279 | |
| Jetzt kaufen | $279.99 | |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 67.32 | |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1493 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1000 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 119.4 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 59.72 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.822 TFLOPS | |
| Leitungssysteme | 1280 | |
| Pixel-Füllrate | 59.72 GPixel/s | |
| Texturfüllrate | 119.4 GTexel/s | |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 75 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 4400 million | 6,600 million |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort Anzahl | 1 | |
| DisplayPort-Unterstützung | ||
| HDMI | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Länge | 201 mm (7.9") | 229 mm |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | 1x 8-pin |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 5 GB | |
| Speicherbandbreite | 200.2 GB/s | |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 160 bit | |
| Speichertyp | GDDR5X | |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 12000 MHz | |
