AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT versus NVIDIA Quadro P4000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 34% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1607 MHz versus 1202 MHz
- Environ 25% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1845 MHz versus 1480 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 162.4 GTexel/s versus 165.8 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 7 nm versus 16 nm
- Environ 84% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 14000 MHz versus 7604 MHz
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 44854 versus 42289
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2024.814 versus 1590.392
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 13.328 versus 11.365
- 2.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 125.474 versus 45.977
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 12 Dec 2019 versus 6 February 2017 |
Vitesse du noyau | 1607 MHz versus 1202 MHz |
Vitesse augmenté | 1845 MHz versus 1480 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 162.4 GTexel/s versus 165.8 GTexel / s |
Processus de fabrication | 7 nm versus 16 nm |
Vitesse de mémoire | 14000 MHz versus 7604 MHz |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 44854 versus 42289 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2024.814 versus 1590.392 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 13.328 versus 11.365 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 125.474 versus 45.977 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3722 versus 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3367 versus 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3722 versus 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3367 versus 3358 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro P4000
- Environ 27% de pipelines plus haut: 1792 versus 1408
- Environ 30% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 100 Watt versus 130 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 11653 versus 9160
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 827 versus 784
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 152.325 versus 128.135
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 751.626 versus 742.778
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 15267 versus 11075
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 15267 versus 11075
Caractéristiques | |
Pipelines | 1792 versus 1408 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt versus 130 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 4 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 11653 versus 9160 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 827 versus 784 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.325 versus 128.135 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 versus 742.778 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 versus 11075 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 versus 11075 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4904 versus 4894 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P4000
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) |
|
|
||||
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score |
|
|
Nom | AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 9160 | 11653 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 784 | 827 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 44854 | 42289 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 128.135 | 152.325 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2024.814 | 1590.392 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 13.328 | 11.365 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 125.474 | 45.977 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 742.778 | 751.626 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11075 | 15267 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3722 | 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3367 | 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11075 | 15267 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3722 | 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3367 | 3358 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4894 | 4904 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Pascal |
Nom de code | Navi 14 | GP104 |
Date de sortie | 12 Dec 2019 | 6 February 2017 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $169 | $815 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 288 | 275 |
Genre | Desktop, Laptop | Workstation |
Prix maintenant | $799.99 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.17 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1845 MHz | 1480 MHz |
Unités de Compute | 22 | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1607 MHz | 1202 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 7 nm | 16 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 324.7 GFLOPS (1:16) | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 10.39 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 5.196 TFLOPS | |
Pipelines | 1408 | 1792 |
Pixel fill rate | 59.04 GPixel/s | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 162.4 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 130 Watt | 100 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 6400 million | 7,200 million |
Performance á point flottant | 5,304 gflops | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
Display Port | 1.4 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Longeur | 7.09 inches (180 mm) | 241 mm |
Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 450 Watt | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
Largeur | Dual-slot | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
OpenCL | 2.0 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 8 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 224 GB/s | 192 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 14000 MHz | 7604 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
4K H264 Decode | ||
4K H264 Encode | ||
H265/HEVC Decode | ||
H265/HEVC Encode | ||
HDMI 4K Support | ||
3D Stereo | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus |