NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M versus NVIDIA Quadro 5000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M and NVIDIA Quadro 5000 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 670M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 17% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 598 MHz versus 513 MHz
- Environ 48% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 33.5 billion / sec versus 22.57 GTexel / s
- Environ 11% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 803.7 gflops versus 722.3 gflops
- 2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 152 Watt
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 588.645 versus 511.131
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.916 versus 17.065
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 52.899 versus 46.591
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2731 versus 2602
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3627 versus 3104
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 versus 3316
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2731 versus 2602
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3627 versus 3104
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 versus 3316
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 March 2012 versus 23 February 2011 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 598 MHz versus 513 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 33.5 billion / sec versus 22.57 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 803.7 gflops versus 722.3 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 152 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 588.645 versus 511.131 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.916 versus 17.065 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 52.899 versus 46.591 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2731 versus 2602 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3627 versus 3104 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 versus 3316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2731 versus 2602 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3627 versus 3104 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 versus 3316 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro 5000
- Environ 5% de pipelines plus haut: 352 versus 336
- Environ 68% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 2560 MB versus 1526 MB
- 2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 3000 MHz versus 1500 MHz
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1934 versus 1746
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 388 versus 303
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 7358 versus 6392
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 16.451 versus 15.053
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.925 versus 1.72
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 352 versus 336 |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 2560 MB versus 1526 MB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 3000 MHz versus 1500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1934 versus 1746 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 388 versus 303 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 7358 versus 6392 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 16.451 versus 15.053 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.925 versus 1.72 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 5000
| 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 670M | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1746 | 1934 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 303 | 388 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6392 | 7358 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 15.053 | 16.451 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 588.645 | 511.131 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.72 | 1.925 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.916 | 17.065 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 52.899 | 46.591 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2731 | 2602 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3627 | 3104 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 | 3316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2731 | 2602 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3627 | 3104 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 | 3316 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2062 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Fermi |
| Nom de code | GF114 | GF100 |
| Date de sortie | 22 March 2012 | 23 February 2011 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 979 | 981 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $2,499 | |
| Prix maintenant | $268 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 12.71 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 598 MHz | 513 MHz |
| Noyaux CUDA | 336 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 803.7 gflops | 722.3 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 336 | 352 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 33.5 billion / sec | 22.57 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 152 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,950 million | 3,100 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0 | |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Options SLI | 2-way | |
| Longeur | 248 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 API | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 1526 MB | 2560 MB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 72.0 GB / s | 120.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 192bit | 320 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1500 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| FXAA | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 670M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4225 IGP
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 670M vs
NVIDIAQuadro 5000
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 670M vs
AMDFirePro V4900
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 670M vs
NVIDIATesla K10
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 670M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2000D
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 670M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 645 OEM
