NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q versus AMD Radeon Pro Duo
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q and AMD Radeon Pro Duo 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 RTX 2070 Max-Q
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 9 mois plus tard
- Environ 19% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1185 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 28 nm
- 3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 115 Watt versus 350 Watt
- 28x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 14000 MHz versus 500 MHz
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 11609 versus 8183
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 76209 versus 56040
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 168.08 versus 141.474
- Environ 74% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 22.794 versus 13.132
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1001.496 versus 799.933
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 17328 versus 10141
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8912 versus 3713
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 17328 versus 10141
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8912 versus 3713
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 29 January 2019 versus 26 April 2016 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1185 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 115 Watt versus 350 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 14000 MHz versus 500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11609 versus 8183 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 76209 versus 56040 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 168.08 versus 141.474 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 22.794 versus 13.132 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1001.496 versus 799.933 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 17328 versus 10141 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8912 versus 3713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 17328 versus 10141 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8912 versus 3713 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Pro Duo
- 3.6x plus de pipelines: 2x 4096 versus 2304
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 780 versus 472
- Environ 87% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3621.344 versus 1935.102
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 112.973 versus 111.023
- 4.7x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 38251 versus 8055
- 4.7x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 38251 versus 8055
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 2x 4096 versus 2304 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 780 versus 472 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3621.344 versus 1935.102 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 112.973 versus 111.023 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 38251 versus 8055 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 38251 versus 8055 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Pro Duo
| 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 RTX 2070 Max-Q | AMD Radeon Pro Duo |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11609 | 8183 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 472 | 780 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 76209 | 56040 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 168.08 | 141.474 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1935.102 | 3621.344 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 22.794 | 13.132 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 111.023 | 112.973 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1001.496 | 799.933 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 17328 | 10141 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8912 | 3713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8055 | 38251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 17328 | 10141 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8912 | 3713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8055 | 38251 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 6796 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q | AMD Radeon Pro Duo | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | TU106 | Capsaicin |
| Date de sortie | 29 January 2019 | 26 April 2016 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 189 | 192 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
| Conception | reference | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $1,499 | |
| Prix maintenant | $849 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.05 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1185 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 885 MHz | |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2304 | 2x 4096 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 115 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 10,800 million | 8,900 million |
| Unités de Compute | 128 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 2x 8,192 gflops | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 2x 256.0 GTexel / s billion / sec | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Nombre d’écrans Eyefinity | 6 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 3x 8-pin |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Longeur | 277 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | DirectX® 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 2x 4096 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 14000 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) |
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 512 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| Enduro | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| FRTC | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon R9 295X2
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon Pro Duo
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon RX 5700
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 5000 Mobile
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q vs
NVIDIARTX A1000 Mobile
