NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 versus NVIDIA Quadro K5200
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 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 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 54% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1024 MHz versus 667 MHz
- Environ 54% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1188 MHz versus 771 MHz
- Environ 67% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 90 Watt versus 150 Watt
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 643 versus 540
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 60.473 versus 47.147
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.279 versus 3.996
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 231.508 versus 115.307
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6803 versus 5946
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6803 versus 5946
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 20 August 2015 versus 22 July 2014 |
Vitesse du noyau | 1024 MHz versus 667 MHz |
Vitesse augmenté | 1188 MHz versus 771 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 90 Watt versus 150 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 643 versus 540 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 60.473 versus 47.147 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.279 versus 3.996 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 231.508 versus 115.307 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6803 versus 5946 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 versus 3353 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6803 versus 5946 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 versus 3353 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K5200
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 148.0 GTexel / s versus 49.2 billion / sec
- 3x plus de pipelines: 2304 versus 768
- Environ 95% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,553 gflops versus 1,825 gflops
- 4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 2 GB
- 1001.3x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 6008 MHz versus 6.6 GB/s
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6104 versus 5337
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 19323 versus 16715
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1278.433 versus 758.865
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 50.08 versus 29.738
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 148.0 GTexel / s versus 49.2 billion / sec |
Pipelines | 2304 versus 768 |
Performance á point flottant | 3,553 gflops versus 1,825 gflops |
Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 2 GB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz versus 6.6 GB/s |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6104 versus 5337 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 19323 versus 16715 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1278.433 versus 758.865 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 50.08 versus 29.738 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3708 versus 3697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3708 versus 3697 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K5200
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 950 | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5337 | 6104 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 643 | 540 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 16715 | 19323 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 60.473 | 47.147 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 758.865 | 1278.433 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.279 | 3.996 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 29.738 | 50.08 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 231.508 | 115.307 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6803 | 5946 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3697 | 3708 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3353 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6803 | 5946 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3697 | 3708 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3353 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1862 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
Nom de code | GM206 | GK110B |
Date de sortie | 20 August 2015 | 22 July 2014 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $159 | $1,699.74 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 540 | 541 |
Prix maintenant | $194.44 | $523.66 |
Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 30.06 | 14.51 |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1188 MHz | 771 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 1024 MHz | 667 MHz |
Noyaux CUDA | 768 | |
Performance á point flottant | 1,825 gflops | 3,553 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 768 | 2304 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 49.2 billion / sec | 148.0 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 90 Watt | 150 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 2,940 million | 7,080 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 | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
HDCP | ||
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Longeur | 7.938" (20.2 cm) | 267 mm |
Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 350 Watt | |
Options SLI | 2x | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pins | 1x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 8 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 105.6 GB / s | 192.3 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 6.6 GB/s | 6008 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 |