NVIDIA RTX A5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA RTX A5000 und NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 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 A5000
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 2 Jahr(e) 7 Monat(e) später
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 8 nm vs 12 nm
- Etwa 44% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 22553 vs 15652
- Etwa 46% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 1032 vs 705
- Etwa 47% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 154729 vs 105171
- 2.2x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 581.432 vs 270.203
- Etwa 83% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 6836.931 vs 3728.248
- 2x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 54.372 vs 26.999
- Etwa 73% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 191.518 vs 110.761
- Etwa 49% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 2038.811 vs 1370.281
- Etwa 14% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 22508 vs 19811
- Etwa 14% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 22508 vs 19811
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 12 Apr 2021 vs 13 August 2018 |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 8 nm vs 12 nm |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 22553 vs 15652 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 1032 vs 705 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 154729 vs 105171 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 581.432 vs 270.203 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 6836.931 vs 3728.248 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 54.372 vs 26.999 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 191.518 vs 110.761 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2038.811 vs 1370.281 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 22508 vs 19811 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 22508 vs 19811 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000
- Etwa 38% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1620 MHz vs 1170 MHz
- Etwa 7% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1815 MHz vs 1695 MHz
- Etwa 15% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 200 Watt vs 230 Watt
- 7x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 14000 MHz vs 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1620 MHz vs 1170 MHz |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1815 MHz vs 1695 MHz |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 200 Watt vs 230 Watt |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 14000 MHz vs 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3719 vs 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3355 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3719 vs 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3355 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA RTX A5000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000
| 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 RTX A5000 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 22553 | 15652 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 1032 | 705 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 154729 | 105171 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 581.432 | 270.203 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 6836.931 | 3728.248 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 54.372 | 26.999 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 191.518 | 110.761 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2038.811 | 1370.281 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 22508 | 19811 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | 3719 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 22508 | 19811 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | 3719 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 10685 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA RTX A5000 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Ampere | Turing |
| Codename | GA102 | TU104 |
| Startdatum | 12 Apr 2021 | 13 August 2018 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 69 | 138 |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $2,299 | |
| Typ | Workstation | |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1695 MHz | 1815 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1170 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 8 nm | 12 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 867.8 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 27.77 TFLOPS (1:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 27.77 TFLOPS | |
| Leitungssysteme | 8192 | |
| Pixel-Füllrate | 162.7 GPixel/s | |
| Texturfüllrate | 433.9 GTexel/s | |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 230 Watt | 200 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 28300 million | 13,600 million |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | 4x DisplayPort | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Formfaktor | Dual-slot | |
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Länge | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 267 mm |
| Empfohlene Systemleistung (PSU) | 550 Watt | |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Breite | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.2 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 24 GB | |
| Speicherbandbreite | 768 GB/s | |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 384 bit | |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 14000 MHz |
| Speichertyp | GDDR6 | |
