AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 versus NVIDIA Titan X Pascal
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 and NVIDIA Titan X Pascal 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: 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 - 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), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 7 mois plus tard
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 249.6 GTexel/s versus 342.9 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 16 nm
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3063.269 versus 2368.267
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11925 versus 10841
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3947 versus 3696
- 3.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 10411 versus 3333
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11925 versus 10841
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3947 versus 3696
- 3.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 10411 versus 3333
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 19 March 2019 versus 2 August 2016 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 249.6 GTexel/s versus 342.9 GTexel / s |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 16 nm |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3063.269 versus 2368.267 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11925 versus 10841 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3947 versus 3696 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 10411 versus 3333 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11925 versus 10841 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3947 versus 3696 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 10411 versus 3333 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Titan X Pascal
- Environ 18% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1417 MHz versus 1200 MHz
- Environ 18% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1531 MHz versus 1300 MHz
- Environ 17% de pipelines plus haut: 3584 versus 3072
- 50x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 250 Watt versus 12500 million
- Environ 50% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 12 GB versus 8 GB
- 12.7x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 10008 MHz versus 786 MHz (1572 MHz effective)
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 63437 versus 53429
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 165.792 versus 135.416
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 17.829 versus 12.678
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 992.132 versus 883.876
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1417 MHz versus 1200 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1531 MHz versus 1300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 3584 versus 3072 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt versus 12500 million |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 12 GB versus 8 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 10008 MHz versus 786 MHz (1572 MHz effective) |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 63437 versus 53429 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 165.792 versus 135.416 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 17.829 versus 12.678 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 992.132 versus 883.876 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48
GPU 2: NVIDIA Titan X Pascal
| 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 - 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 Pro Vega 48 | NVIDIA Titan X Pascal |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11300 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 784 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 53429 | 63437 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 135.416 | 165.792 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3063.269 | 2368.267 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 12.678 | 17.829 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 883.876 | 992.132 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11925 | 10841 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3947 | 3696 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 10411 | 3333 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11925 | 10841 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3947 | 3696 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 10411 | 3333 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.354 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 9559 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 | NVIDIA Titan X Pascal | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Vega 10 PRO | Pascal |
| Nom de code | Greenland | GP102 |
| Génération GCN | GCN 5.0 | |
| Date de sortie | 19 March 2019 | 2 August 2016 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 228 | 346 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $1,199 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1300 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1200 MHz | 1417 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 499.2 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 15.97 TFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 7.987 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 3072 | 3584 |
| Pixel fill rate | 83.20 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 249.6 GTexel/s | 342.9 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 12500 million | 250 Watt |
| Performance á point flottant | 10,974 gflops | |
| Compte de transistor | 11,800 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| Mémoire de la bande passante haute (HBM) | ||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 402.4 GB/s | 480.4 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 2048 bit | 384 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 786 MHz (1572 MHz effective) | 10008 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | HBM2 | GDDR5X |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 avec des autres
AMDRadeon Pro Vega 48 vs
NVIDIATesla P40
AMDRadeon Pro Vega 48 vs
AMDRadeon Pro Vega 64
AMDRadeon Pro Vega 48 vs
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 3000
AMDRadeon Pro Vega 48 vs
AMDRadeon Pro 5700
AMDRadeon Pro Vega 48 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1630
AMDRadeon Pro Vega 48 vs
AMDRadeon RX 6400
