NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 vs AMD Radeon Pro Duo
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 und AMD Radeon Pro Duo 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 RTX 8000
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 2 Jahr(e) 3 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 20% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1200 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- Etwa 40% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 250 Watt vs 350 Watt
- 28x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 14000 MHz vs 500 MHz
- 2.4x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 19370 vs 8164
- Etwa 14% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 869 vs 765
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 137748 vs 53806
- 2.8x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 401.574 vs 141.474
- Etwa 78% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 6432.348 vs 3621.344
- 3.3x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 43.914 vs 13.132
- Etwa 91% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 215.219 vs 112.973
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 2101.927 vs 799.933
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 21578 vs 10141
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 21578 vs 10141
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 13 August 2018 vs 26 April 2016 |
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1200 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 250 Watt vs 350 Watt |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 14000 MHz vs 500 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 19370 vs 8164 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 869 vs 765 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 137748 vs 53806 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 401.574 vs 141.474 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 6432.348 vs 3621.344 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 43.914 vs 13.132 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 215.219 vs 112.973 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2101.927 vs 799.933 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 21578 vs 10141 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 21578 vs 10141 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD Radeon Pro Duo
- Etwa 2% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3713 vs 3652
- 11.6x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 38251 vs 3290
- Etwa 2% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3713 vs 3652
- 11.6x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 38251 vs 3290
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3713 vs 3652 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 38251 vs 3290 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3713 vs 3652 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 38251 vs 3290 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Pro Duo
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 8000 | AMD Radeon Pro Duo |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 19370 | 8164 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 869 | 765 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 137748 | 53806 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 401.574 | 141.474 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 6432.348 | 3621.344 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 43.914 | 13.132 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 215.219 | 112.973 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2101.927 | 799.933 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 21578 | 10141 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3652 | 3713 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3290 | 38251 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 21578 | 10141 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3652 | 3713 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3290 | 38251 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 0 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | AMD Radeon Pro Duo | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
Codename | TU102 | Capsaicin |
Startdatum | 13 August 2018 | 26 April 2016 |
Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $9,999 | $1,499 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 103 | 188 |
Typ | Workstation | Workstation |
Design | reference | |
Jetzt kaufen | $849 | |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 17.05 | |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1200 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1005 MHz | |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm | 28 nm |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 250 Watt | 350 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 18,600 million | 8,900 million |
Berechnungseinheiten | 128 | |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 2x 8,192 gflops | |
Leitungssysteme | 2x 4096 | |
Texturfüllrate | 2x 256.0 GTexel / s billion / sec | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
DisplayPort-Unterstützung | ||
Eyefinity | ||
HDMI | ||
Anzahl der Eyefinity-Displays | 6 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Länge | 267 mm | 277 mm |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 2x 8-pin | 3x 8-pin |
Busunterstützung | PCIe 3.0 | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | 2.0 | |
Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
Speichertaktfrequenz | 14000 MHz | 500 MHz |
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 8 GB | |
Speicherbandbreite | 512 GB / s | |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 2x 4096 Bit | |
Speichertyp | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | |
Technologien |
||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
Enduro | ||
FreeSync | ||
FRTC | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
PowerTune | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
ZeroCore |