NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A versus NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 7 mois plus tard
- Environ 54% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1029 MHz versus 667 MHz
- Environ 63% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 43.4 GTexel / s versus 26.68 GTexel / s
- Environ 63% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,389 gflops versus 853.8 gflops
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 12495 versus 10787
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5157 versus 4750
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 5834 versus 3720
- 2.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 7859 versus 3084
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5157 versus 4750
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 5834 versus 3720
- 2.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 7859 versus 3084
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 versus 19 July 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz versus 667 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 43.4 GTexel / s versus 26.68 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,389 gflops versus 853.8 gflops |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12495 versus 10787 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5157 versus 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 5834 versus 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 7859 versus 3084 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5157 versus 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 5834 versus 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 7859 versus 3084 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
- Environ 15% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 65 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 374 versus 312
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3481 versus 3465 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 374 versus 312 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A
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 960A | NVIDIA Quadro K2200M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3465 | 3481 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 312 | 374 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12495 | 10787 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 49.772 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 757.295 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.67 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 49.875 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 179.567 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5157 | 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 5834 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 7859 | 3084 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5157 | 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 5834 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 7859 | 3084 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A | NVIDIA Quadro K2200M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | GM107 | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 | 19 July 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 550 | 547 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1085 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz | 667 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,389 gflops | 853.8 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 640 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 43.4 GTexel / s | 26.68 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 1,870 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.19 GB / s | 80 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6500
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
AMDRadeon HD 8970M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
NVIDIAGRID K260Q
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2200M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
NVIDIAGeForce MX450
