AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 versus AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100 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 - 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 Radeon Pro WX 3200
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 11 mois plus tard
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 34.62 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel / s
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 2428 versus 1832
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 444 versus 402
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 14535 versus 10229
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 486.804 versus 438.581
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.503 versus 2.268
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 53.111 versus 46.988
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 27 May 2019 versus 12 June 2017 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 34.62 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel / s |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2428 versus 1832 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 444 versus 402 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 14535 versus 10229 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 486.804 versus 438.581 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.503 versus 2.268 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 53.111 versus 46.988 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 versus 3350 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 versus 3350 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
- Environ 13% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1219 MHz versus 1082 MHz
- Environ 75% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7000 MHz versus 4000 MHz
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 30.848 versus 25.896
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 139.235 versus 100.658
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3241 versus 2524
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3709 versus 3274
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3241 versus 2524
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3709 versus 3274
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse augmenté | 1219 MHz versus 1082 MHz |
Vitesse de mémoire | 7000 MHz versus 4000 MHz |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 30.848 versus 25.896 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 139.235 versus 100.658 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3241 versus 2524 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3709 versus 3274 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3241 versus 2524 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3709 versus 3274 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
GPU 2: AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
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 Radeon Pro WX 3200 | AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2428 | 1832 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 444 | 402 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 14535 | 10229 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.896 | 30.848 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 486.804 | 438.581 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.503 | 2.268 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 53.111 | 46.988 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 100.658 | 139.235 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2524 | 3241 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3274 | 3709 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3350 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2524 | 3241 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3274 | 3709 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3350 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Polaris | GCN 4.0 |
Nom de code | Lexa | Lexa |
Date de sortie | 27 May 2019 | 12 June 2017 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | $149 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 813 | 804 |
Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1082 MHz | 1219 MHz |
Unités de Compute | 10 | |
Vitesse du noyau | 925 MHz | 925 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 14 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 86.56 GFLOPS | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 1,385 GFLOPS | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 1,385 GFLOPS | |
Pixel fill rate | 17.31 GPixel/s | |
Stream Processors | 640 | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 34.62 GTexel/s | 39.01 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 2200 million | 2,200 million |
Performance á point flottant | 1,248 gflops | |
Pipelines | 512 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Hauteur | Half Height | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Longeur | 6.6" (168 mm) | 145 mm |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 | 12.0 (12_0) |
OpenCL | 2.0 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 96 GB/s | 56 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 64 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz | 7000 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Video Code Engine (VCE) |