NVIDIA Quadro 3000M versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 430 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 3000M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 61% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 18 GTexel / s versus 11.2 billion / sec
- 2.5x plus de pipelines: 240 versus 96
- Environ 61% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 432.0 gflops versus 268.8 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- 2.8x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 2500 MHz versus 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 995 versus 599
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 312 versus 198
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3784 versus 2242
- 3.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 10.95 versus 3.396
- 3.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 325.007 versus 87.094
- 3.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.865 versus 0.243
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 13.794 versus 5.005
- 7.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 27.961 versus 3.764
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 February 2011 versus 11 October 2010 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18 GTexel / s versus 11.2 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 240 versus 96 |
| Performance á point flottant | 432.0 gflops versus 268.8 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2500 MHz versus 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 995 versus 599 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 312 versus 198 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3784 versus 2242 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.95 versus 3.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 325.007 versus 87.094 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.865 versus 0.243 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.794 versus 5.005 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 27.961 versus 3.764 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
- 3.1x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1400 MHz versus 450 MHz
- Environ 53% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 49 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1080 versus 218
- 4.6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1713 versus 374
- 3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1624 versus 543
- 5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1080 versus 218
- 4.6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1713 versus 374
- 3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1624 versus 543
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1400 MHz versus 450 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 49 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1080 versus 218 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1713 versus 374 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1624 versus 543 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1080 versus 218 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1713 versus 374 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1624 versus 543 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
| 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 3000M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 430 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 995 | 599 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 312 | 198 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3784 | 2242 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.95 | 3.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 325.007 | 87.094 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.865 | 0.243 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.794 | 5.005 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 27.961 | 3.764 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 218 | 1080 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 374 | 1713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 543 | 1624 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 218 | 1080 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 374 | 1713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 543 | 1624 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro 3000M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 430 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Fermi | Fermi |
| Nom de code | GF104 | GF108 |
| Date de sortie | 22 February 2011 | 11 October 2010 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $398.96 | $79 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1500 | 1501 |
| Prix maintenant | $199.95 | $35.99 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 7.98 | 20.89 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 450 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 432.0 gflops | 268.8 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 240 | 96 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18 GTexel / s | 11.2 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,950 million | 585 million |
| Noyaux CUDA par GPU | 96 | |
| Température maximale du GPU | 98 °C | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA, HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI |
| Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
| HDMI | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Soutien de bus | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | |
| Hauteur | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | |
| Longeur | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.0 GB / s | 25.6 - 28.8 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2500 MHz | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro 3000M avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 430
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 7470 OEM
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
AMDFirePro M2000
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 7480D
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 800M
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
IntelHD Graphics 510
