NVIDIA Quadro P400 vs AMD Radeon R9 M360
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P400 and AMD Radeon R9 M360 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: 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.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro P400
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- Around 36% higher core clock speed: 1228 MHz vs 900 MHz
- Around 35% higher boost clock speed: 1252 MHz vs 925 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 3.6x more memory clock speed: 4012 MHz vs 1125 MHz
- Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 440 vs 399
- Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 19.856 vs 19.479
- Around 77% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2875 vs 1623
- Around 77% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2875 vs 1623
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 7 February 2017 vs 5 May 2015 |
Core clock speed | 1228 MHz vs 900 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1252 MHz vs 925 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Memory clock speed | 4012 MHz vs 1125 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 440 vs 399 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 19.856 vs 19.479 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2875 vs 1623 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2875 vs 1623 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M360
- Around 39% higher texture fill rate: 29.6 GTexel / s vs 21.25 GTexel / s
- 2x more pipelines: 512 vs 256
- Around 39% better floating-point performance: 947.2 gflops vs 679.9 gflops
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1812 vs 1644
- 2.7x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 8176 vs 3053
- Around 86% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 575.773 vs 309.824
- Around 38% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.902 vs 1.38
- Around 37% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 34.15 vs 25.011
- Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 87.811 vs 84.489
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2801 vs 2709
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3360 vs 3328
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2801 vs 2709
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3360 vs 3328
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 29.6 GTexel / s vs 21.25 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 512 vs 256 |
Floating-point performance | 947.2 gflops vs 679.9 gflops |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1812 vs 1644 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8176 vs 3053 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 575.773 vs 309.824 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.902 vs 1.38 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 34.15 vs 25.011 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 87.811 vs 84.489 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2801 vs 2709 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 vs 3328 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2801 vs 2709 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 vs 3328 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P400
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M360
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 P400 | AMD Radeon R9 M360 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1644 | 1812 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 440 | 399 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3053 | 8176 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 19.856 | 19.479 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 309.824 | 575.773 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.38 | 1.902 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 25.011 | 34.15 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 84.489 | 87.811 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2709 | 2801 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2875 | 1623 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3328 | 3360 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2709 | 2801 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2875 | 1623 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3328 | 3360 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 617 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro P400 | AMD Radeon R9 M360 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |
Code name | GP107 | Tropo |
Launch date | 7 February 2017 | 5 May 2015 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $119.99 | |
Place in performance rating | 1000 | 1003 |
Price now | $119.99 | |
Type | Workstation | Desktop |
Value for money (0-100) | 18.70 | |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1252 MHz | 925 MHz |
Core clock speed | 1228 MHz | 900 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 679.9 gflops | 947.2 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 256 | 512 |
Texture fill rate | 21.25 GTexel / s | 29.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | |
Transistor count | 3,300 million | 1,500 million |
Compute units | 8 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 3x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
Eyefinity | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | 145 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 32.1 GB / s | 72 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 bit |
Memory clock speed | 4012 MHz | 1125 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Switchable graphics | ||
ZeroCore |