AMD Radeon R9 280X versus NVIDIA Quadro K6000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 280X and NVIDIA Quadro K6000 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, 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, Geekbench - OpenCL.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 280X
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 11% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1000 MHz versus 902 MHz
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 685 versus 543
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 89.187 versus 67.178
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.656 versus 7.435
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 493.57 versus 355.166
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 versus 23 July 2013 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1000 MHz versus 902 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 685 versus 543 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 89.187 versus 67.178 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.656 versus 7.435 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 493.57 versus 355.166 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 3356 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K6000
- Environ 69% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 216.5 GTexel / s versus 128.0 GTexel / s
- Environ 41% de pipelines plus haut: 2880 versus 2048
- Environ 27% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 5,196 gflops versus 4,096 gflops
- Environ 11% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 225 Watt versus 250 Watt
- 4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 12 GB versus 3 GB
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 8059 versus 6209
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1816.61 versus 1434.496
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 88.889 versus 87.459
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12657 versus 9603
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12657 versus 9603
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 216.5 GTexel / s versus 128.0 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2880 versus 2048 |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,196 gflops versus 4,096 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 225 Watt versus 250 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 12 GB versus 3 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8059 versus 6209 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1816.61 versus 1434.496 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 88.889 versus 87.459 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12657 versus 9603 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3711 versus 3700 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12657 versus 9603 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3711 versus 3700 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 280X
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K6000
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 R9 280X | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6209 | 8059 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 685 | 543 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 89.187 | 67.178 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1434.496 | 1816.61 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.656 | 7.435 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 87.459 | 88.889 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 493.57 | 355.166 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9603 | 12657 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3700 | 3711 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9603 | 12657 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3700 | 3711 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3356 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2347 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22920 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 280X | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
| Nom de code | Tahiti | GK110B |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 23 July 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $299 | $5,265 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 378 | 361 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
| Prix maintenant | $833.98 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 11.34 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1000 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 4,096 gflops | 5,196 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2048 | 2880 |
| Stream Processors | 2048 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 128.0 GTexel / s | 216.5 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4,313 million | 7,080 million |
| Vitesse du noyau | 797 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 275 mm | 267 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 3 GB | 12 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 288 GB/s | 288.4 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 384 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R9 280X avec des autres
AMDRadeon R9 280X vs
ATIRadeon X1800 GTO²
AMDRadeon R9 280X vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7950 GX2
AMDRadeon R9 280X vs
ATIRadeon HD 2900 XT
AMDRadeon R9 280X vs
ATIRadeon HD 2900 PRO
AMDRadeon R9 280X vs
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q
AMDRadeon R9 280X vs
IntelArc A370M
