NVIDIA GeForce 930M versus NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce 930M 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 930M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 55% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 51 Watt
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4974 versus 4071
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 22.344 versus 14.332
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.225 versus 1.093
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.899 versus 15.009
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 84.246 versus 38.219
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3706 versus 1631
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 versus 1974
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3706 versus 1631
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 versus 1974
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 versus 1 March 2013 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 51 Watt |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4974 versus 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.344 versus 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.225 versus 1.093 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.899 versus 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 84.246 versus 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 versus 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 versus 1974 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K2000
- Environ 3% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 954 MHz versus 928 MHz
- Environ 35% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 30.53 GTexel / s versus 22.58 GTexel / s
- Environ 1% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 732.7 gflops versus 722.7 gflops
- 2.2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1577 versus 1012
- 2.5x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 382 versus 151
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 265.424 versus 166.907
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 versus 1987
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 versus 1987
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 954 MHz versus 928 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 30.53 GTexel / s versus 22.58 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 732.7 gflops versus 722.7 gflops |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1577 versus 1012 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 382 versus 151 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 265.424 versus 166.907 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 versus 1987 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 versus 1987 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 930M
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 930M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1012 | 1577 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 151 | 382 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4974 | 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.344 | 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 166.907 | 265.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.225 | 1.093 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.899 | 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 84.246 | 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1987 | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1987 | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 1974 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce 930M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GM108 | GK107 |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 | 1 March 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1204 | 1207 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $599 | |
| Prix maintenant | $164.99 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 11.74 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 941 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 928 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 722.7 gflops | 732.7 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 22.58 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 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Longeur | 202 mm | |
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 | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce 930M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce 930M vs
ATIRadeon 9800 SE
NVIDIAGeForce 930M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2000
NVIDIAGeForce 930M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8670D
NVIDIAGeForce 930M vs
AMDFirePro W2100
NVIDIAGeForce 930M vs
AMDRadeon R7 M260X
NVIDIAGeForce 930M vs
AMDRadeon R5 430 OEM
