NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 und NVIDIA Quadro M4000 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: 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, PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 3 Jahr(e) 4 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 30% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1005 MHz vs 773 MHz
- 2767.8x mehr Texturfüllrate: 222.5 GTexel/s vs 80.39 GTexel / s
- Etwa 38% höhere Leitungssysteme: 2304 vs 1664
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- 4.6x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 85209 vs 18372
- 3.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 232.933 vs 65.548
- 5.1x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3728.135 vs 732.046
- 4.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 24.872 vs 5.453
- 7.7x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 136.223 vs 17.725
- 4.7x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1011.233 vs 217.357
- 3.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 20206 vs 6291
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 vs 3685
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 vs 3332
- 3.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 20206 vs 6291
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 vs 3685
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 vs 3332
- 2.8x bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1873 vs 680
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 13 November 2018 vs 29 June 2015 |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1005 MHz vs 773 MHz |
Texturfüllrate | 222.5 GTexel/s vs 80.39 GTexel / s |
Leitungssysteme | 2304 vs 1664 |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 85209 vs 18372 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 232.933 vs 65.548 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3728.135 vs 732.046 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 24.872 vs 5.453 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 136.223 vs 17.725 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1011.233 vs 217.357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 20206 vs 6291 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 vs 3685 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 vs 3332 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 20206 vs 6291 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 vs 3685 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 vs 3332 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1873 vs 680 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro M4000
- Etwa 33% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 120 Watt vs 160 Watt
- 3.7x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 6008 MHz vs 1625 MHz (13000 MHz effective)
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 120 Watt vs 160 Watt |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 6008 MHz vs 1625 MHz (13000 MHz effective) |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M4000
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 RTX 4000 | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 |
---|---|---|
Geekbench - OpenCL | 85209 | 18372 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 232.933 | 65.548 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3728.135 | 732.046 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 24.872 | 5.453 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 136.223 | 17.725 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1011.233 | 217.357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 20206 | 6291 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | 3685 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 | 3332 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 20206 | 6291 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | 3685 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 | 3332 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1873 | 680 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6680 | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 673 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Turing | Maxwell 2.0 |
Codename | TU104 | GM204 |
GCN-Generierung | Quadro RTX | |
Startdatum | 13 November 2018 | 29 June 2015 |
Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $899 | $791 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 211 | 534 |
Typ | Desktop | Workstation |
Jetzt kaufen | $765.93 | |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 10.68 | |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1545 MHz | |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1005 MHz | 773 MHz |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm | 28 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 222.5 GFLOPS | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 14.24 TFLOPS | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 7.119 TFLOPS | |
Leitungssysteme | 2304 | 1664 |
Pixel fill rate | 98.88 GPixel/s | |
Render output units | 64 | |
Texturfüllrate | 222.5 GTexel/s | 80.39 GTexel / s |
Texture Units | 144 | |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 160 Watt | 120 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 13600 million | 5,200 million |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 2,573 gflops | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 4x DisplayPort, DP DP DP DP 3-pin Stereo |
Multi-Display-Synchronisation | Quadro Sync | |
Anzahl der gleichzeitigen Anzeigen | 4 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Länge | 9.5 inches (241 mm) | 241 mm |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 1x 8-pin | 1 x 6-pin |
SLI-Optionen | 1 | |
Breite | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | 5 |
Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 8 GB | 8 GB |
Speicherbandbreite | 416.0 GB/s | |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 256 bit | 256 Bit |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 1625 MHz (13000 MHz effective) | 6008 MHz |
Speichertyp | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Technologien |
||
3D Vision Pro | ||
High-Performance Video I/O6 | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Desktop Management |