NVIDIA Tesla C2075 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Tesla C2075 und NVIDIA Quadro 6000 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 Tesla C2075
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 7 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 12% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3017 vs 2685
- Etwa 7% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10493 vs 9850
- Etwa 11% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 26.973 vs 24.377
- Etwa 17% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 930.623 vs 793.755
- Etwa 18% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.142 vs 2.66
- Etwa 32% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 45.924 vs 34.891
- Etwa 3% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 93.747 vs 90.839
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 25 July 2011 vs 10 December 2010 |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 575 MHz vs 574 MHz |
Texturfüllrate | 32.2 GTexel / s vs 32.1 GTexel / s |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 1,030.4 gflops vs 1,027.7 gflops |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 3000 MHz vs 2988 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3017 vs 2685 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10493 vs 9850 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.973 vs 24.377 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 930.623 vs 793.755 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.142 vs 2.66 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.924 vs 34.891 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 93.747 vs 90.839 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3705 vs 3689 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 vs 3335 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3705 vs 3689 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 vs 3335 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro 6000
- Etwa 21% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 204 Watt vs 247 Watt
- Etwa 4% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 446 vs 428
- Etwa 24% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3501 vs 2825
- Etwa 24% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3501 vs 2825
Spezifikationen | |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 204 Watt vs 247 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 446 vs 428 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3501 vs 2825 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3501 vs 2825 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Tesla C2075
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 6000
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 Tesla C2075 | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3017 | 2685 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 428 | 446 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10493 | 9850 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.973 | 24.377 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 930.623 | 793.755 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.142 | 2.66 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.924 | 34.891 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 93.747 | 90.839 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2825 | 3501 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3705 | 3689 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 | 3335 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2825 | 3501 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3705 | 3689 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 | 3335 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA Tesla C2075 | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Fermi 2.0 | Fermi |
Codename | GF110 | GF100 |
Startdatum | 25 July 2011 | 10 December 2010 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 789 | 792 |
Typ | Workstation | Workstation |
Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $4,399 | |
Jetzt kaufen | $332.21 | |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 12.86 | |
Technische Info |
||
Kerntaktfrequenz | 575 MHz | 574 MHz |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 1,030.4 gflops | 1,027.7 gflops |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 40 nm | 40 nm |
Leitungssysteme | 448 | 448 |
Texturfüllrate | 32.2 GTexel / s | 32.1 GTexel / s |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 247 Watt | 204 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 3,000 million | 3,100 million |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | 1x DVI | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Länge | 248 mm | 248 mm |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 6 GB | 6 GB |
Speicherbandbreite | 144.0 GB / s | 143.4 GB / s |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 384 Bit | 384 Bit |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 3000 MHz | 2988 MHz |
Speichertyp | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |