NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro P2200 und NVIDIA Quadro P4000 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 P2200
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 2 Jahr(e) 4 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 1% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1493 MHz vs 1480 MHz
- 720.1x mehr Texturfüllrate: 119.4 GTexel/s vs 165.8 GTexel / s
- Etwa 33% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 75 Watt vs 100 Watt
- Etwa 12% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 892 vs 795
- Etwa 23% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1958.592 vs 1590.392
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.742 vs 45.977
- 3.1x bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3404 vs 1115
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 10 June 2019 vs 6 February 2017 |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1493 MHz vs 1480 MHz |
| Texturfüllrate | 119.4 GTexel/s vs 165.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 100 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 vs 795 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 vs 1590.392 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 vs 45.977 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 vs 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 vs 3714 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 vs 1115 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro P4000
- Etwa 20% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1202 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- Etwa 40% höhere Leitungssysteme: 1792 vs 1280
- Um etwa 60% höhere maximale Speichergröße: 8 GB vs 5 GB
- Etwa 23% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 11545 vs 9372
- Etwa 31% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 42289 vs 32343
- Etwa 26% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 152.325 vs 121.124
- Etwa 34% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.365 vs 8.452
- Etwa 47% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 751.626 vs 510.941
- Etwa 33% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 15267 vs 11437
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 1676
- Etwa 33% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 15267 vs 11437
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 1676
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1202 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
| Leitungssysteme | 1792 vs 1280 |
| Maximale Speichergröße | 8 GB vs 5 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11545 vs 9372 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 42289 vs 32343 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.325 vs 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.365 vs 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 vs 510.941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 vs 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 vs 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 1676 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P4000
| 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 Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9372 | 11545 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 | 795 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 | 42289 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | 152.325 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | 1590.392 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | 11.365 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | 45.977 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | 751.626 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 | 15267 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1676 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 | 15267 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1676 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 | 1115 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Pascal | Pascal |
| Codename | GP106 | GP104 |
| Startdatum | 10 June 2019 | 6 February 2017 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 307 | 287 |
| Typ | Workstation | Workstation |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $815 | |
| Jetzt kaufen | $799.99 | |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 17.17 | |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1493 MHz | 1480 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1000 MHz | 1202 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 16 nm | 16 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 | 1792 |
| Pixel-Füllrate | 59.72 GPixel/s | |
| Texturfüllrate | 119.4 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 4400 million | 7,200 million |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 5,304 gflops | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | 4x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.4 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Länge | 201 mm (7.9") | 241 mm |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | 1x 6-pin |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 5 GB | 8 GB |
| Speicherbandbreite | 200.2 GB/s | 192 GB / s |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 160 bit | 256 Bit |
| Speichertyp | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 7604 MHz | |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | |
Technologien |
||
| 3D Stereo | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
