NVIDIA GeForce 840M versus NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce 840M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000M 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 840M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 9 mois plus tard
- Environ 38% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1029 MHz versus 745 MHz
- Environ 51% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 863.2 gflops versus 572.2 gflops
- Environ 67% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 55 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 11% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 2002 MHz versus 1800 MHz
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1096 versus 1011
- Environ 87% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5745 versus 3074
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 22.848 versus 8.142
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.237 versus 0.741
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.15 versus 16.571
- 5.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 95.545 versus 18.406
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2085 versus 1726
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2736 versus 2207
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2085 versus 1726
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2736 versus 2207
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 12 March 2014 versus 1 June 2012 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz versus 745 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 863.2 gflops versus 572.2 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 55 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2002 MHz versus 1800 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1096 versus 1011 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5745 versus 3074 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.848 versus 8.142 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.237 versus 0.741 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.15 versus 16.571 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 95.545 versus 18.406 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2085 versus 1726 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2736 versus 2207 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2085 versus 1726 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2736 versus 2207 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
- Environ 33% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 23.84 GTexel / s versus 17.98 GTexel / s
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 256 versus 151
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 262.321 versus 162.594
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3351 versus 3191
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3351 versus 3191
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 23.84 GTexel / s versus 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 256 versus 151 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 262.321 versus 162.594 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3351 versus 3191 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3351 versus 3191 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 840M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
| 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 840M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1096 | 1011 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 151 | 256 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5745 | 3074 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.848 | 8.142 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 162.594 | 262.321 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.237 | 0.741 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.15 | 16.571 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 95.545 | 18.406 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2085 | 1726 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2736 | 2207 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3191 | 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2085 | 1726 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2736 | 2207 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3191 | 3351 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 503 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce 840M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GM108 | GK107 |
| Date de sortie | 12 March 2014 | 1 June 2012 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1256 | 1258 |
| Genre | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $265.27 | |
| Prix maintenant | $149.95 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 8.53 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1124 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 863.2 gflops | 572.2 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 17.98 GTexel / s | 23.84 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | medium sized |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 16.02 GB / s | 28.8 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2002 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce 840M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
ATIRadeon 9000
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
ATIRadeon X1600
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon HD 7620G IGP
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2000M
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
NVIDIAGRID K180Q
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon R7 M260DX
