NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A versus AMD FirePro W7000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A and AMD FirePro W7000 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire. 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 GTX 960A
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 9 mois plus tard
- Environ 8% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1029 MHz versus 950 MHz
- 4.7x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 350 Watt
- Environ 4% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5012 MHz versus 4800 MHz
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 631 versus 547
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 5834 versus 3714
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 7859 versus 3359
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 5834 versus 3714
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 7859 versus 3359
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 versus 13 June 2012 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz versus 950 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 350 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz versus 4800 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 631 versus 547 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 5834 versus 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 7859 versus 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 5834 versus 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 7859 versus 3359 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro W7000
- Environ 75% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 76 GTexel / s versus 43.4 GTexel / s
- 2x plus de pipelines: 1280 versus 640
- Environ 75% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,432 gflops versus 1,389 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4277 versus 2411
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 18734 versus 12495
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 52.467 versus 49.772
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1148.367 versus 757.295
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.886 versus 3.67
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.472 versus 49.875
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 268.49 versus 179.567
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6475 versus 5157
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6475 versus 5157
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 76 GTexel / s versus 43.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1280 versus 640 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,432 gflops versus 1,389 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4277 versus 2411 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 18734 versus 12495 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 52.467 versus 49.772 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1148.367 versus 757.295 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.886 versus 3.67 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.472 versus 49.875 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 268.49 versus 179.567 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6475 versus 5157 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6475 versus 5157 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A
GPU 2: AMD FirePro W7000
| 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 960A | AMD FirePro W7000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2411 | 4277 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 631 | 547 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12495 | 18734 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 49.772 | 52.467 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 757.295 | 1148.367 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.67 | 4.886 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 49.875 | 85.472 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 179.567 | 268.49 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5157 | 6475 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 5834 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 7859 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5157 | 6475 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 5834 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 7859 | 3359 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A | AMD FirePro W7000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | GM107 | Pitcairn |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 | 13 June 2012 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 475 | 497 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $899 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1085 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,389 gflops | 2,432 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 1280 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 43.4 GTexel / s | 76 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 2,800 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
| Compte DisplayPort | 4 | |
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| StereoOutput3D | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Facteur de forme | Full Height / Full Length | |
| Longeur | 242 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.19 GB / s | 153.6 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 4800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 3670
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
AMDRadeon HD 7870 GHz Edition
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
AMDRadeon HD 8760 OEM
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
NVIDIAGRID M60-2Q
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop)
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
AMDRadeon Pro Vega 20
