NVIDIA Quadro P4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Desktop)
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro P4000 und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Desktop) 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 P4000
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 7 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 50% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 100 Watt vs 150 Watt
- 950.5x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 7604 MHz vs 8 GB/s
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 152.325 vs 150.951
- Etwa 63% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 45.977 vs 28.289
- Etwa 6% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 751.626 vs 710.366
- Etwa 11% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 15267 vs 13765
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 vs 3691
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3340
- Etwa 11% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 15267 vs 13765
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 vs 3691
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3340
- Etwa 3% bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1115 vs 1082
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 6 February 2017 vs 10 June 2016 |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 100 Watt vs 150 Watt |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 7604 MHz vs 8 GB/s |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.325 vs 150.951 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.977 vs 28.289 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 vs 710.366 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 vs 13765 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 vs 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3340 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 vs 13765 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 vs 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3340 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1115 vs 1082 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Desktop)
- Etwa 25% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1506 MHz vs 1202 MHz
- Etwa 14% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1683 MHz vs 1480 MHz
- Etwa 22% höhere Texturfüllrate: 202.0 GTexel / s vs 165.8 GTexel / s
- Etwa 7% höhere Leitungssysteme: 1920 vs 1792
- Etwa 22% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 6,463 gflops vs 5,304 gflops
- Etwa 17% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 13504 vs 11545
- Etwa 7% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 847 vs 795
- Etwa 12% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 47476 vs 42289
- Etwa 8% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1718.593 vs 1590.392
- Etwa 8% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 12.283 vs 11.365
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1506 MHz vs 1202 MHz |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1683 MHz vs 1480 MHz |
| Texturfüllrate | 202.0 GTexel / s vs 165.8 GTexel / s |
| Leitungssysteme | 1920 vs 1792 |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 6,463 gflops vs 5,304 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 13504 vs 11545 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 847 vs 795 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 47476 vs 42289 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1718.593 vs 1590.392 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 12.283 vs 11.365 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Desktop)
| 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 P4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Desktop) |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11545 | 13504 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 795 | 847 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 42289 | 47476 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.325 | 150.951 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1590.392 | 1718.593 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.365 | 12.283 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.977 | 28.289 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 | 710.366 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 | 13765 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3340 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 | 13765 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3340 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1115 | 1082 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Desktop) | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Pascal | Pascal |
| Codename | GP104 | GP104 |
| Startdatum | 6 February 2017 | 10 June 2016 |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $815 | $379 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 287 | 288 |
| Jetzt kaufen | $799.99 | $359.99 |
| Typ | Workstation | Desktop |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 17.17 | 45.72 |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1480 MHz | 1683 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1202 MHz | 1506 MHz |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 5,304 gflops | 6,463 gflops |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 16 nm | 16 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 1792 | 1920 |
| Texturfüllrate | 165.8 GTexel / s | 202.0 GTexel / s |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 100 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 7,200 million | 7,200 million |
| CUDA-Kerne | 1920 | |
| Maximale GPU-Temperatur | 94 °C | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI |
| Display Port | 1.4 | |
| G-SYNC-Unterstützung | ||
| Multi-Monitor-Unterstützung | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Länge | 241 mm | 10.5" (26.7 cm) |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 1x 6-pin | 8-pin |
| Busunterstützung | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Höhe | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
| Empfohlene Systemleistung (PSU) | 500 Watt | |
| Breite | 2-slot | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Speicherbandbreite | 192 GB / s | 256 GB / s |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 7604 MHz | 8 GB/s |
| Speichertyp | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | 0 |
Technologien |
||
| 3D Stereo | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| Ansel | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| ShadowWorks | ||
| SLI | ||
| Virtuelle Realität | ||

