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 600
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 312 versus 199
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3764 versus 2240
- 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 600 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 312 versus 199 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3764 versus 2240 |
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 | 600 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 312 | 199 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3764 | 2240 |
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 | 1499 | 1500 |
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 |