NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 versus NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 9 mois plus tard
- Environ 39% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1395 MHz versus 1005 MHz
- Environ 10% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1695 MHz versus 1545 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 556.0 GTexel/s versus 222.5 GTexel/s
- 4.6x plus de pipelines: 10496 versus 2304
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 8 nm versus 12 nm
- 3x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 24 GB versus 8 GB
- 2.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 188320 versus 85558
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 732.196 versus 282.628
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 7585.258 versus 3403.106
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 63.011 versus 24.719
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 247.569 versus 136.919
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 2441.384 versus 1010.818
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 33398 versus 20206
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 33398 versus 20206
- 2.5x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 19877 versus 7856
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 1 Sep 2020 versus 13 November 2018 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1395 MHz versus 1005 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1695 MHz versus 1545 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 556.0 GTexel/s versus 222.5 GTexel/s |
| Pipelines | 10496 versus 2304 |
| Processus de fabrication | 8 nm versus 12 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 24 GB versus 8 GB |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 188320 versus 85558 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 732.196 versus 282.628 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 7585.258 versus 3403.106 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 63.011 versus 24.719 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 247.569 versus 136.919 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2441.384 versus 1010.818 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 33398 versus 20206 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 33398 versus 20206 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 19877 versus 7856 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
- 2.2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 160 Watt versus 350 Watt
- Environ 33% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1625 MHz (13000 MHz effective) versus 1219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective)
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 160 Watt versus 350 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1625 MHz (13000 MHz effective) versus 1219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective) |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 versus 3713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 3354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 versus 3713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 3354 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 26816 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 1051 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 188320 | 85558 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 732.196 | 282.628 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 7585.258 | 3403.106 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 63.011 | 24.719 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 247.569 | 136.919 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2441.384 | 1010.818 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 33398 | 20206 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3713 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 33398 | 20206 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3713 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 | 3359 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 19877 | 7856 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Ampere | Turing |
| Nom de code | GA102 | TU104 |
| Date de sortie | 1 Sep 2020 | 13 November 2018 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $1499 | $899 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 40 | 195 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Génération GCN | Quadro RTX | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1695 MHz | 1545 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1395 MHz | 1005 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 8 nm | 12 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 556.0 GFLOPS (1:64) | 222.5 GFLOPS |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 35.58 TFLOPS (1:1) | 14.24 TFLOPS |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 35.58 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |
| Pipelines | 10496 | 2304 |
| Pixel fill rate | 189.8 GPixel/s | 98.88 GPixel/s |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 556.0 GTexel/s | 222.5 GTexel/s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 350 Watt | 160 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 28300 million | 13600 million |
| Render output units | 64 | |
| Texture Units | 144 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Hauteur | 138 mm (5.4 inches) | |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 313 mm (12.3 inches) | 9.5 inches (241 mm) |
| Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 750 Watt | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 12-pin | 1x 8-pin |
| Largeur | Triple-slot | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.2 | 12.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 24 GB | 8 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 936.2 GB/s | 416.0 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 384 bit | 256 bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective) | 1625 MHz (13000 MHz effective) |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6X | GDDR6 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3090 vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3070
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3090 vs
NVIDIATesla V100S PCIe 32 GB
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3090 vs
AMDRadeon Pro W6600
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3090 vs
NVIDIARTX A4500
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3090 vs
NVIDIARTX A5500
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3090 vs
NVIDIARTX 4000 Ada Generation
