AMD Radeon Pro W5500 versus NVIDIA Quadro P2200
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro W5500 and NVIDIA Quadro P2200 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: 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, 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Pro W5500
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 8 mois plus tard
- Environ 19% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1187 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 3% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 123.2 GTexel/s versus 119.4 GTexel/s
- Environ 10% de pipelines plus haut: 1408 versus 1280
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 7 nm versus 16 nm
- Environ 60% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 8 GB versus 5 GB
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 130.7 versus 121.124
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2361.73 versus 1958.592
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 13.641 versus 8.452
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 135.462 versus 120.742
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 774.974 versus 510.941
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12184 versus 11437
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3355 versus 1676
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12184 versus 11437
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3355 versus 1676
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 10 Feb 2020 versus 10 June 2019 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1187 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 123.2 GTexel/s versus 119.4 GTexel/s |
| Pipelines | 1408 versus 1280 |
| Processus de fabrication | 7 nm versus 16 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 5 GB |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 130.7 versus 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2361.73 versus 1958.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 13.641 versus 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 135.462 versus 120.742 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 774.974 versus 510.941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12184 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 versus 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12184 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 versus 1676 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro P2200
- Environ 7% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1493 MHz versus 1400 MHz
- Environ 67% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 125 Watt
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3717 versus 3463
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3717 versus 3463
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz versus 1400 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 125 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 versus 3463 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 versus 3463 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro W5500
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
| 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 Pro W5500 | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 |
|---|---|---|
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 130.7 | 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2361.73 | 1958.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 13.641 | 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 135.462 | 120.742 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 774.974 | 510.941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12184 | 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3463 | 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12184 | 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3463 | 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 1676 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9372 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro W5500 | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Pascal |
| Nom de code | Navi 14 | GP106 |
| Date de sortie | 10 Feb 2020 | 10 June 2019 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $399 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 324 | 307 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1400 MHz | 1493 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1187 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 7 nm | 16 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 246.4 GFLOPS (1:16) | 119.4 GFLOPS |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1) | 59.72 GFLOPS |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.942 TFLOPS | 3.822 TFLOPS |
| Pipelines | 1408 | 1280 |
| Pixel fill rate | 44.80 GPixel/s | 59.72 GPixel/s |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 123.2 GTexel/s | 119.4 GTexel/s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 125 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 6400 million | 4400 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 201 mm (7.9") |
| Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 350 Watt | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Largeur | Single-slot | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | 5 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 224 GB/s | 200.2 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 160 bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1750 MHz (14000 MHz effective) | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Pro W5500 avec des autres
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
ATIRadeon X1900 CrossFire Edition
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
ATIFireGL V7600
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
AMDFireStream 9170
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8990 OEM
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega M GH
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
NVIDIAGeForce MX570
