NVIDIA RTX A4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA RTX A4000 und NVIDIA Quadro P2200 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA RTX A4000
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 1 Jahr(e) 10 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 4% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1560 MHz vs 1493 MHz
- 2.5x mehr Texturfüllrate: 299.5 GTexel/s vs 119.4 GTexel/s
- 4.8x mehr Leitungssysteme: 6144 vs 1280
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 8 nm vs 16 nm
- 3.2x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 16 GB vs 5 GB
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 19545 vs 9372
- Etwa 15% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 1026 vs 892
- 3.8x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 121768 vs 32343
- 3.5x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 420.465 vs 121.124
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 4156.52 vs 1958.592
- 3.8x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 32.297 vs 8.452
- Etwa 34% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 162.131 vs 120.742
- 3.7x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1895.111 vs 510.941
- Etwa 93% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 22050 vs 11437
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3355 vs 1676
- Etwa 93% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 22050 vs 11437
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3355 vs 1676
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 12 Apr 2021 vs 10 June 2019 |
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1560 MHz vs 1493 MHz |
Texturfüllrate | 299.5 GTexel/s vs 119.4 GTexel/s |
Leitungssysteme | 6144 vs 1280 |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 8 nm vs 16 nm |
Maximale Speichergröße | 16 GB vs 5 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 19545 vs 9372 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 1026 vs 892 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 121768 vs 32343 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 420.465 vs 121.124 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 4156.52 vs 1958.592 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 32.297 vs 8.452 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 162.131 vs 120.742 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1895.111 vs 510.941 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 22050 vs 11437 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 vs 1676 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 22050 vs 11437 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 vs 1676 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro P2200
- Etwa 36% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1000 MHz vs 735 MHz
- Etwa 87% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 75 Watt vs 140 Watt
- Etwa 31% bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3404 vs 2604
Spezifikationen | |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1000 MHz vs 735 MHz |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 140 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 vs 3715 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 vs 3715 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 vs 2604 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA RTX A4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
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 RTX A4000 | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 19545 | 9372 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 1026 | 892 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 121768 | 32343 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 420.465 | 121.124 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 4156.52 | 1958.592 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 32.297 | 8.452 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 162.131 | 120.742 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1895.111 | 510.941 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 22050 | 11437 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3717 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 1676 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 22050 | 11437 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3717 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 1676 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2604 | 3404 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA RTX A4000 | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Ampere | Pascal |
Codename | GA104 | GP106 |
Startdatum | 12 Apr 2021 | 10 June 2019 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 108 | 307 |
Typ | Workstation | |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1560 MHz | 1493 MHz |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 735 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 8 nm | 16 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 599.0 GFLOPS (1:32) | 119.4 GFLOPS |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) | 59.72 GFLOPS |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 19.17 TFLOPS | 3.822 TFLOPS |
Leitungssysteme | 6144 | 1280 |
Pixel fill rate | 149.8 GPixel/s | 59.72 GPixel/s |
Texturfüllrate | 299.5 GTexel/s | 119.4 GTexel/s |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 140 Watt | 75 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 17400 million | 4400 million |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | 4x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Formfaktor | Single-slot | |
Schnittstelle | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Länge | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 201 mm (7.9") |
Empfohlene Systemleistung (PSU) | 300 Watt | |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 1x 6-pin | None |
Breite | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.2 | 12.0 |
OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.4 |
Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 16 GB | 5 GB |
Speicherbandbreite | 448 GB/s | 200.2 GB/s |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 256 bit | 160 bit |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | |
Speichertyp | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |