NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 versus NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200M 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 950
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 54% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1024 MHz versus 667 MHz
- Environ 84% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 49.2 billion / sec versus 26.68 GTexel / s
- Environ 20% de pipelines plus haut: 768 versus 640
- 2.1x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,825 gflops versus 853.8 gflops
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 5347 versus 3501
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 642 versus 367
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 16715 versus 10787
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6803 versus 4750
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 versus 3084
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6803 versus 4750
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 versus 3084
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 20 August 2015 versus 19 July 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1024 MHz versus 667 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 49.2 billion / sec versus 26.68 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 768 versus 640 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,825 gflops versus 853.8 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5347 versus 3501 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 642 versus 367 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 16715 versus 10787 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6803 versus 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 versus 3084 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6803 versus 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 versus 3084 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
- Environ 38% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 65 Watt versus 90 Watt
- 835.3x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5012 MHz versus 6.6 GB/s
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3720 versus 3697
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3720 versus 3697
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt versus 90 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz versus 6.6 GB/s |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 versus 3697 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 versus 3697 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| 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 950 | NVIDIA Quadro K2200M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5347 | 3501 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 642 | 367 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 16715 | 10787 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 60.473 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 758.865 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.279 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 29.738 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 231.508 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6803 | 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3697 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3084 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6803 | 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3697 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3084 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 104 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 | NVIDIA Quadro K2200M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | GM206 | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 20 August 2015 | 19 July 2014 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $159 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 553 | 556 |
| Prix maintenant | $194.44 | |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 30.06 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1188 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1024 MHz | 667 MHz |
| Noyaux CUDA | 768 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,825 gflops | 853.8 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 640 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 49.2 billion / sec | 26.68 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 90 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2,940 million | 1,870 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |
| Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
| HDCP | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
| Soutien de plusiers moniteurs | ||
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Hauteur | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Longeur | 7.938" (20.2 cm) | |
| Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 350 Watt | |
| Options SLI | 2x | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pins | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 105.6 GB / s | 80 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6.6 GB/s | 5012 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| Adaptive Vertical Sync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| SLI | ||
| Surround | ||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6500
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4830
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8970M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2200M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
AMDRadeon Pro 560X
