NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro P2200 und NVIDIA Quadro 2000 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 8 Jahr(e) 5 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 60% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1000 MHz vs 625 MHz
- 5970x mehr Texturfüllrate: 119.4 GTexel/s vs 20 GTexel / s
- 6.7x mehr Leitungssysteme: 1280 vs 192
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 16 nm vs 40 nm
- 5x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 5 GB vs 1 GB
- 9.9x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 9372 vs 947
- 2.9x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 892 vs 303
- 8.3x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 32343 vs 3879
- 11.8x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 121.124 vs 10.229
- 7.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1958.592 vs 258.26
- 9.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 8.452 vs 0.885
- 8.8x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.742 vs 13.688
- 26.9x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 510.941 vs 19.02
- 7.1x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11437 vs 1600
- 2.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3717 vs 1682
- 7.1x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11437 vs 1600
- 2.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3717 vs 1682
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 10 June 2019 vs 24 December 2010 |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1000 MHz vs 625 MHz |
Texturfüllrate | 119.4 GTexel/s vs 20 GTexel / s |
Leitungssysteme | 1280 vs 192 |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 16 nm vs 40 nm |
Maximale Speichergröße | 5 GB vs 1 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 9372 vs 947 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 vs 303 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 vs 3879 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 vs 10.229 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 vs 258.26 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 vs 0.885 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 vs 13.688 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 vs 19.02 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 vs 1600 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 vs 1682 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 vs 1600 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 vs 1682 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro 2000
- Etwa 21% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 62 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Etwa 59% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2668 vs 1676
- Etwa 59% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2668 vs 1676
Spezifikationen | |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 62 Watt vs 75 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2668 vs 1676 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2668 vs 1676 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 2000
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 P2200 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 9372 | 947 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 | 303 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 | 3879 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | 10.229 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | 258.26 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | 0.885 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | 13.688 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | 19.02 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 | 1600 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 1682 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1676 | 2668 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 | 1600 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 1682 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1676 | 2668 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Pascal | Fermi |
Codename | GP106 | GF106 |
Startdatum | 10 June 2019 | 24 December 2010 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 307 | 1287 |
Typ | Workstation | Workstation |
Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $599 | |
Jetzt kaufen | $87.99 | |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 17.65 | |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1493 MHz | |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1000 MHz | 625 MHz |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 16 nm | 40 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 | 192 |
Pixel fill rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | |
Texturfüllrate | 119.4 GTexel/s | 20 GTexel / s |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 75 Watt | 62 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 4400 million | 1,170 million |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 480.0 gflops | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Länge | 201 mm (7.9") | 178 mm |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | None |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenCL | 1.2 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | |
Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 5 GB | 1 GB |
Speicherbandbreite | 200.2 GB/s | 41.6 GB / s |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 160 bit | 128 Bit |
Speichertyp | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 2600 MHz |