NVIDIA GeForce 940M versus NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce 940M 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 940M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 12% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1072 MHz versus 954 MHz
- Environ 23% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 903.2 gflops versus 732.7 gflops
- Environ 55% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 51 Watt
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5958 versus 4071
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 25.98 versus 14.332
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.307 versus 1.093
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.837 versus 15.009
- 2.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 101.399 versus 38.219
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3065 versus 1631
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 versus 1974
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3065 versus 1631
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 versus 1974
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 versus 1 March 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1072 MHz versus 954 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 903.2 gflops versus 732.7 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 51 Watt |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5958 versus 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.98 versus 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.307 versus 1.093 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.837 versus 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 101.399 versus 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3065 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3065 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 1974 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K2000
- Environ 8% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 30.53 GTexel / s versus 28.22 GTexel / s
- 2.2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz
- Environ 40% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1577 versus 1127
- 2.5x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 385 versus 155
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 265.424 versus 168.449
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 versus 2132
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 versus 2132
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 30.53 GTexel / s versus 28.22 GTexel / s |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1577 versus 1127 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 385 versus 155 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 265.424 versus 168.449 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 versus 2132 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 versus 2132 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 940M
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 940M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1127 | 1577 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 155 | 385 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5958 | 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.98 | 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 168.449 | 265.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.307 | 1.093 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.837 | 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 101.399 | 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2132 | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3065 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2132 | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3065 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 1974 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 506 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce 940M | 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 | 1216 | 1219 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $599 | |
| Prix maintenant | $164.99 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 11.74 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1176 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1072 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 903.2 gflops | 732.7 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 28.22 GTexel / s | 30.53 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 51 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 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 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
| 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 | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce 940M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2000
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 745A
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 830M
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 930M
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
IntelHD Graphics P530
NVIDIAGeForce 940M vs
AMDRadeon R8 M350DX
