NVIDIA Quadro 3000M versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M 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 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 67% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 18 GTexel / s versus 10.8 billion / sec
- 2.5x plus de pipelines: 240 versus 96
- Environ 67% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 432.0 gflops versus 258.05 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- 2.8x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 2500 MHz versus 900 MHz
- 2.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 994 versus 478
- 3.5x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 312 versus 90
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3783 versus 2154
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 10.95 versus 4.85
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 325.007 versus 195.796
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.865 versus 0.561
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 13.794 versus 9.109
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 27.961 versus 16.727
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 February 2011 versus 5 January 2011 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18 GTexel / s versus 10.8 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 240 versus 96 |
| Performance á point flottant | 432.0 gflops versus 258.05 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2500 MHz versus 900 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 994 versus 478 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 312 versus 90 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3783 versus 2154 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.95 versus 4.85 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 325.007 versus 195.796 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.865 versus 0.561 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.794 versus 9.109 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 27.961 versus 16.727 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M
- Environ 49% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 672 MHz versus 450 MHz
- 2.1x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 35 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 4.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 960 versus 218
- 5.9x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2210 versus 374
- 5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2701 versus 543
- 4.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 960 versus 218
- 5.9x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2210 versus 374
- 5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2701 versus 543
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 672 MHz versus 450 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 960 versus 218 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2210 versus 374 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2701 versus 543 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 960 versus 218 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2210 versus 374 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2701 versus 543 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M
| 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 540M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 994 | 478 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 312 | 90 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3783 | 2154 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.95 | 4.85 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 325.007 | 195.796 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.865 | 0.561 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.794 | 9.109 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 27.961 | 16.727 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 218 | 960 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 374 | 2210 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 543 | 2701 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 218 | 960 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 374 | 2210 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 543 | 2701 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro 3000M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Fermi | Fermi |
| Nom de code | GF104 | GF108 |
| Date de sortie | 22 February 2011 | 5 January 2011 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $398.96 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1499 | 1500 |
| Prix maintenant | $199.95 | |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 7.98 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 450 MHz | 672 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 432.0 gflops | 258.05 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 240 | 96 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18 GTexel / s | 10.8 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,950 million | 585 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 96 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | large | large |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.0 GB / s | 28.8 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2500 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Gaming | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro 3000M avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6800 GS
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
NVIDIAQuadro NVS 420
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 430
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 540M
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 7480D
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M vs
AppleA12Z Bionic
