NVIDIA GeForce 830M versus NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce 830M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 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 NVIDIA GeForce 830M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 13% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1082 MHz versus 954 MHz
- Environ 55% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 51 Watt
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4213 versus 4071
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 16.955 versus 14.332
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 17.81 versus 15.009
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 67.443 versus 38.219
- 2.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3589 versus 1631
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 versus 1974
- 2.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3589 versus 1631
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 versus 1974
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 12 March 2014 versus 1 March 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1082 MHz versus 954 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 51 Watt |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4213 versus 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 16.955 versus 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 17.81 versus 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 67.443 versus 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3589 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 versus 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3589 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 versus 1974 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K2000
- Environ 66% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 30.53 GTexel / s versus 18.4 GTexel / s
- Environ 50% de pipelines plus haut: 384 versus 256
- Environ 24% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 732.7 gflops versus 588.8 gflops
- 2.2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1580 versus 1006
- 2.8x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 385 versus 137
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 265.424 versus 156.544
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.093 versus 1.013
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 versus 1729
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 versus 1729
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 30.53 GTexel / s versus 18.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 256 |
| Performance á point flottant | 732.7 gflops versus 588.8 gflops |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1580 versus 1006 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 385 versus 137 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 265.424 versus 156.544 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.093 versus 1.013 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 versus 1729 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 versus 1729 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 830M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
| 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 | NVIDIA GeForce 830M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1006 | 1580 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 137 | 385 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4213 | 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 16.955 | 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 156.544 | 265.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.013 | 1.093 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 17.81 | 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 67.443 | 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1729 | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3589 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1729 | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3589 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 1974 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce 830M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GM108 | GK107 |
| Date de sortie | 12 March 2014 | 1 March 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1213 | 1215 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $599 | |
| Prix maintenant | $164.99 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 11.74 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1082 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 588.8 gflops | 732.7 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 256 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.4 GTexel / s | 30.53 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 51 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 202 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | 64 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 4000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce 830M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce 830M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 625M
NVIDIAGeForce 830M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2000
NVIDIAGeForce 830M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 745A
NVIDIAGeForce 830M vs
AMDFirePro W2100
NVIDIAGeForce 830M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 940M
NVIDIAGeForce 830M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 930M
