NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q und AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 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).
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 9 Monat(e) später
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 12 nm vs 14 nm
- 3.8x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 60 Watt vs 230 Watt
- Etwa 29% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 220.867 vs 171.616
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 27 May 2019 vs 13 August 2018 |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm vs 14 nm |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 60 Watt vs 230 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 220.867 vs 171.616 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200
- 2x mehr Kerntaktfrequenz: 1200 MHz vs 600 MHz
- Etwa 26% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1530 MHz vs 1215 MHz
- Etwa 59% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 13047 vs 8202
- 2.3x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 769 vs 332
- Etwa 2% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 69530 vs 68305
- Etwa 97% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 4031.404 vs 2046.214
- Etwa 6% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 16.925 vs 16.026
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 247.788 vs 94.532
- Etwa 85% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1195.863 vs 645.647
- Etwa 29% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13044 vs 10140
- Etwa 93% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7164 vs 3706
- 9.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 30936 vs 3351
- Etwa 29% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13044 vs 10140
- Etwa 93% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7164 vs 3706
- 9.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 30936 vs 3351
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1200 MHz vs 600 MHz |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1530 MHz vs 1215 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 13047 vs 8202 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 769 vs 332 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 69530 vs 68305 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 4031.404 vs 2046.214 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 16.925 vs 16.026 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 247.788 vs 94.532 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1195.863 vs 645.647 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13044 vs 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 7164 vs 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 30936 vs 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13044 vs 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 7164 vs 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 30936 vs 3351 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200
| 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 RTX 3000 Max-Q | AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8202 | 13047 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 332 | 769 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 68305 | 69530 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 220.867 | 171.616 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2046.214 | 4031.404 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 16.026 | 16.925 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 94.532 | 247.788 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 645.647 | 1195.863 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10140 | 13044 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 | 7164 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3351 | 30936 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10140 | 13044 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 | 7164 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3351 | 30936 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q | AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Turing | GCN 5.0 |
| Codename | TU106 | Vega 10 |
| Startdatum | 27 May 2019 | 13 August 2018 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 329 | 120 |
| Typ | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $999 | |
| Jetzt kaufen | $999 | |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 13.37 | |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1215 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 600 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 175.0 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 11.20 TFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 5.599 TFLOPS | |
| Leitungssysteme | 2304 | |
| Pixel-Füllrate | 77.76 GPixel/s | |
| Texturfüllrate | 175.0 GTexel/s | |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 60 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 10800 million | 12,500 million |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Breite | IGP | |
| Länge | 267 mm | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 6 GB | |
| Speicherbandbreite | 448 GB/s | |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 256 bit | |
| Speichertyp | GDDR6 | |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 2000 MHz | |
