NVIDIA Quadro 2000 versus ATI Radeon HD 5770
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro 2000 and ATI Radeon HD 5770 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 Quadro 2000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 74% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 62 Watt versus 108 Watt
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 10.229 versus 9.373
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 24 December 2010 versus 13 October 2009 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 62 Watt versus 108 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.229 versus 9.373 |
Raisons pour considerer le ATI Radeon HD 5770
- Environ 36% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 850 MHz versus 625 MHz
- Environ 70% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 34.0 GTexel / s versus 20 GTexel / s
- 4.2x plus de pipelines: 800 versus 192
- 2.8x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,360.0 gflops versus 480.0 gflops
- Environ 85% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 4800 MHz versus 2600 MHz
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1345 versus 947
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 335 versus 303
- 2.7x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10495 versus 3879
- Environ 78% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 459.025 versus 258.26
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.906 versus 0.885
- Environ 97% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 27.022 versus 13.688
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 48.793 versus 19.02
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2636 versus 1600
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2673 versus 1682
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2799 versus 2668
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2636 versus 1600
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2673 versus 1682
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2799 versus 2668
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 850 MHz versus 625 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 34.0 GTexel / s versus 20 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 800 versus 192 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,360.0 gflops versus 480.0 gflops |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4800 MHz versus 2600 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1345 versus 947 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 335 versus 303 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10495 versus 3879 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 459.025 versus 258.26 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.906 versus 0.885 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 27.022 versus 13.688 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 48.793 versus 19.02 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2636 versus 1600 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2673 versus 1682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2799 versus 2668 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2636 versus 1600 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2673 versus 1682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2799 versus 2668 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro 2000
GPU 2: ATI Radeon HD 5770
| 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 Quadro 2000 | ATI Radeon HD 5770 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 947 | 1345 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 303 | 335 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3879 | 10495 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.229 | 9.373 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 258.26 | 459.025 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.885 | 0.906 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.688 | 27.022 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 19.02 | 48.793 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1600 | 2636 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1682 | 2673 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2668 | 2799 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1600 | 2636 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1682 | 2673 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2668 | 2799 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro 2000 | ATI Radeon HD 5770 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Fermi | TeraScale 2 |
| Nom de code | GF106 | Juniper |
| Date de sortie | 24 December 2010 | 13 October 2009 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $599 | $159 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1287 | 1094 |
| Prix maintenant | $87.99 | |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.65 | |
| Conception | ATI Radeon HD 5000 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 625 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 480.0 gflops | 1,360.0 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 192 | 800 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 20 GTexel / s | 34.0 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 62 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,170 million | 1,040 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 850 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 178 mm | 208 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 11 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 41.6 GB / s | 76.8 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2600 MHz | 4800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro 2000 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro 2000 vs
ATIRadeon 3100 IGP
NVIDIAQuadro 2000 vs
ATIRadeon HD 3200
NVIDIAQuadro 2000 vs
ATIRadeon HD 4850
NVIDIAQuadro 2000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7640G
NVIDIAQuadro 2000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8750M
NVIDIAQuadro 2000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8510G
