NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M versus NVIDIA Tesla C2070
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M and NVIDIA Tesla C2070 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 960M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 7 mois plus tard
- Environ 91% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1096 MHz versus 575 MHz
- Environ 46% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 47.04 GTexel / s versus 32.2 GTexel / s
- Environ 43% de pipelines plus haut: 640 versus 448
- Environ 46% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,505 gflops versus 1,030.4 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- 3.2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 238 Watt
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3366 versus 3121
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10999 versus 9716
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 54.294 versus 26.223
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.692 versus 3.015
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.794 versus 43.519
- Environ 87% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 174.513 versus 93.344
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5264 versus 3245
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5264 versus 3245
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 versus 25 July 2011 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1096 MHz versus 575 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 47.04 GTexel / s versus 32.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 versus 448 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,505 gflops versus 1,030.4 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 238 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3366 versus 3121 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10999 versus 9716 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.294 versus 26.223 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.692 versus 3.015 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.794 versus 43.519 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 174.513 versus 93.344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5264 versus 3245 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 versus 3710 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5264 versus 3245 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 versus 3710 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3351 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Tesla C2070
- Environ 50% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 6 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 20% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 3000 MHz versus 2500 MHz
- Environ 89% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 462 versus 245
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 908.754 versus 795.325
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 6 GB versus 4 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 3000 MHz versus 2500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 462 versus 245 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 908.754 versus 795.325 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Tesla C2070
| 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 960M | NVIDIA Tesla C2070 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3366 | 3121 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 245 | 462 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10999 | 9716 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.294 | 26.223 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.325 | 908.754 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.692 | 3.015 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.794 | 43.519 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 174.513 | 93.344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5264 | 3245 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | 3710 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5264 | 3245 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | 3710 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3351 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1231 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | NVIDIA Tesla C2070 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |
| Nom de code | GM107 | GF100 |
| Date de sortie | 13 March 2015 | 25 July 2011 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 762 | 765 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1176 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1096 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Noyaux CUDA | 640 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,505 gflops | 1,030.4 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 448 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 47.04 GTexel / s | 32.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 238 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 3,100 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI |
| Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | 1 | |
| HDMI | ||
| Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | 1 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
| Longeur | 248 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 8-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80 GB / s | 144.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2500 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
ATIRadeon HD 4290 IGP
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIATesla C2070
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8970 OEM
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 880M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
AMDRadeon 630
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
IntelUHD Graphics 750
