AMD FirePro M2000 versus NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD FirePro M2000 and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro M2000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 11% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 500 MHz versus 450 MHz
- 2x plus de pipelines: 480 versus 240
- Environ 11% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 480.0 gflops versus 432.0 gflops
- 2.3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 28% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 3200 MHz versus 2500 MHz
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 44.254 versus 27.961
- 2.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 544 versus 218
- 4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1498 versus 374
- 3.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1709 versus 543
- 2.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 544 versus 218
- 4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1498 versus 374
- 3.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1709 versus 543
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 1 July 2012 versus 22 February 2011 |
Vitesse du noyau | 500 MHz versus 450 MHz |
Pipelines | 480 versus 240 |
Performance á point flottant | 480.0 gflops versus 432.0 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Vitesse de mémoire | 3200 MHz versus 2500 MHz |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 44.254 versus 27.961 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 544 versus 218 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1498 versus 374 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1709 versus 543 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 544 versus 218 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1498 versus 374 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1709 versus 543 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
- Environ 50% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 18 GTexel / s versus 12 GTexel / s
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- 2.3x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 995 versus 425
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 312 versus 206
- 3.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3784 versus 1168
- 3.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 10.95 versus 3.284
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 325.007 versus 195.801
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.865 versus 0.31
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 13.794 versus 10.402
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18 GTexel / s versus 12 GTexel / s |
Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 995 versus 425 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 312 versus 206 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3784 versus 1168 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.95 versus 3.284 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 325.007 versus 195.801 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.865 versus 0.31 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.794 versus 10.402 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD FirePro M2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
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) |
|
|
Nom | AMD FirePro M2000 | NVIDIA Quadro 3000M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 425 | 995 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 206 | 312 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 1168 | 3784 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.284 | 10.95 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 195.801 | 325.007 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.31 | 0.865 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.402 | 13.794 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 44.254 | 27.961 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 544 | 218 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1498 | 374 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1709 | 543 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 544 | 218 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1498 | 374 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1709 | 543 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD FirePro M2000 | NVIDIA Quadro 3000M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Fermi |
Nom de code | Turks | GF104 |
Date de sortie | 1 July 2012 | 22 February 2011 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1498 | 1500 |
Genre | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $398.96 | |
Prix maintenant | $199.95 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 7.98 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 500 MHz | 450 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 480.0 gflops | 432.0 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 40 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 480 | 240 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 12 GTexel / s | 18 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 75 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 716 million | 1,950 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
StereoOutput3D | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | n / a | |
Facteur de forme | chip-down | |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | large |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 1 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 25.6 GB / s | 80.0 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 3200 MHz | 2500 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |