AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe versus NVIDIA Quadro K1200
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe and NVIDIA Quadro K1200 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: 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), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 7 mois plus tard
- Environ 3% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1090 MHz versus 1058 MHz
- Environ 7% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1200 MHz versus 1124 MHz
- Environ 60% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 57.6 GTexel / s versus 35.97 GTexel / s
- Environ 75% de pipelines plus haut: 896 versus 512
- Environ 87% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,150 gflops versus 1,151 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 40% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7000 MHz versus 5000 MHz
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 44.281 versus 31.949
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 785.276 versus 466.139
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.951 versus 2.629
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 65.944 versus 25.411
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 196.307 versus 117.722
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5269 versus 4080
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2344 versus 1721
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 versus 3288
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5269 versus 4080
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2344 versus 1721
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 versus 3288
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 versus 28 January 2015 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1090 MHz versus 1058 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1200 MHz versus 1124 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 57.6 GTexel / s versus 35.97 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 896 versus 512 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,150 gflops versus 1,151 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7000 MHz versus 5000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 44.281 versus 31.949 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 785.276 versus 466.139 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.951 versus 2.629 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.944 versus 25.411 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 196.307 versus 117.722 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5269 versus 4080 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2344 versus 1721 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 3288 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5269 versus 4080 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2344 versus 1721 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 3288 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K1200
- Environ 78% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 45 Watt versus 80 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt versus 80 Watt |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K1200
| 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 Radeon E9260 PCIe | NVIDIA Quadro K1200 |
|---|---|---|
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 44.281 | 31.949 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 785.276 | 466.139 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.951 | 2.629 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.944 | 25.411 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 196.307 | 117.722 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5269 | 4080 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2344 | 1721 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3288 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5269 | 4080 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2344 | 1721 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3288 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2952 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 578 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8820 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe | NVIDIA Quadro K1200 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Baffin | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 | 28 January 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 796 | 798 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $321.97 | |
| Prix maintenant | $289.99 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 13.00 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1200 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1090 MHz | 1058 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,150 gflops | 1,151 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 896 | 512 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 57.6 GTexel / s | 35.97 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | 1,870 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort, mDP mDP mDP mDP |
| Nombre d’écrans á la fois | 4 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Longeur | 160 mm | |
| Largeur | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 112.0 GB / s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7000 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Desktop Management | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe avec des autres
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
ATIMobility Radeon X1700
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 560 Ti
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
NVIDIAQuadro K1200
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950M
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega 11
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
AMDRadeon RX 640
