NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M versus NVIDIA Quadro 2000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000M 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 2 mois plus tard
- 2x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 192
- Environ 14% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 480.0 gflops versus 422.4 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 72% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 32 Watt versus 55 Watt
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 931 versus 766
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 275.972 versus 272.707
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 15.445 versus 14.423
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1476 versus 1261
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1963 versus 1926
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1476 versus 1261
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1963 versus 1926
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 March 2012 versus 13 January 2011 |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 192 |
| Performance á point flottant | 480.0 gflops versus 422.4 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 32 Watt versus 55 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 931 versus 766 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 275.972 versus 272.707 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.445 versus 14.423 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1476 versus 1261 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1963 versus 1926 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2580 versus 2569 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1476 versus 1261 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1963 versus 1926 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2580 versus 2569 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro 2000M
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 231 versus 204
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3424 versus 3186
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.306 versus 7.861
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.855 versus 0.727
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 27.158 versus 17.381
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 231 versus 204 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3424 versus 3186 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.306 versus 7.861 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.855 versus 0.727 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 27.158 versus 17.381 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 2000M
| 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 GT 640M | NVIDIA Quadro 2000M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 931 | 766 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 204 | 231 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3186 | 3424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.861 | 8.306 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 275.972 | 272.707 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.727 | 0.855 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.445 | 14.423 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 17.381 | 27.158 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1476 | 1261 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1963 | 1926 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2580 | 2569 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1476 | 1261 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1963 | 1926 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2580 | 2569 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M | NVIDIA Quadro 2000M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |
| Nom de code | GK107 | GF106 |
| Date de sortie | 22 March 2012 | 13 January 2011 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1352 | 1355 |
| Genre | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $46.56 | |
| Prix maintenant | $46.56 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 25.92 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 645 MHz | |
| Noyaux CUDA | 384 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 480.0 gflops | 422.4 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 192 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 32 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | 1,170 million |
| Vitesse du noyau | 550 MHz | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 17.6 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | medium sized |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 API | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3\GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||

