NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti versus NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M 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 GTX 650 Ti
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 54% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 928 MHz versus 601 MHz
- Environ 23% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 59.2 billion / sec versus 48.08 GTexel / s
- Environ 23% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,425 gflops versus 1,154 gflops
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 2530 versus 1957
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 413 versus 302
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 7902 versus 5986
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 23.168 versus 10.054
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 592.345 versus 544.601
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.141 versus 1.46
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 28.29 versus 22.103
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 47.404 versus 36.553
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3948 versus 3855
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3948 versus 3855
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 9 October 2012 versus 1 June 2012 |
Vitesse du noyau | 928 MHz versus 601 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.2 billion / sec versus 48.08 GTexel / s |
Performance á point flottant | 1,425 gflops versus 1,154 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2530 versus 1957 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 413 versus 302 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7902 versus 5986 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 23.168 versus 10.054 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 592.345 versus 544.601 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.141 versus 1.46 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 28.29 versus 22.103 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 47.404 versus 36.553 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3948 versus 3855 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3948 versus 3855 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
- Environ 25% de pipelines plus haut: 960 versus 768
- Environ 10% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 100 Watt versus 110 Watt
- 4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 1 GB
- 560x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 2800 MHz versus 5.4 GB/s
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 4957 versus 3707
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 4470 versus 3335
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 4957 versus 3707
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 4470 versus 3335
Caractéristiques | |
Pipelines | 960 versus 768 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt versus 110 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 1 GB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 2800 MHz versus 5.4 GB/s |
Référence | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 4957 versus 3707 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 4470 versus 3335 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 4957 versus 3707 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 4470 versus 3335 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
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 GTX 650 Ti | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2530 | 1957 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 413 | 302 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7902 | 5986 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 23.168 | 10.054 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 592.345 | 544.601 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.141 | 1.46 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 28.29 | 22.103 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 47.404 | 36.553 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3948 | 3855 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3707 | 4957 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3335 | 4470 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3948 | 3855 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3707 | 4957 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3335 | 4470 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 881 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
Nom de code | GK106 | GK104 |
Date de sortie | 9 October 2012 | 1 June 2012 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $149 | |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 858 | 859 |
Prix maintenant | $169.99 | |
Genre | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 18.72 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 928 MHz | 601 MHz |
Noyaux CUDA | 768 | |
Performance á point flottant | 1,425 gflops | 1,154 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Température maximale du GPU | 105 °C | |
Pipelines | 768 | 960 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.2 billion / sec | 48.08 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 110 Watt | 100 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 2,540 million | 3,540 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI, One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One Mini... | No outputs |
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
Soutien de plusiers moniteurs | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Hauteur | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Longeur | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | One 6-pin | |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 1 GB | 4 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 86.4 GB / s | 89.6 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5.4 GB/s | 2800 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
CUDA | ||
FXAA | ||
TXAA |