NVIDIA Quadro K1200 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 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 K1200
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 45% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1058 MHz versus 732 MHz
- Environ 14% de pipelines plus haut: 512 versus 448
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- 4.7x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 45 Watt versus 210 Watt
- 3.2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 1280 MB
- Environ 32% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5000 MHz versus 3800 MHz
| Date de sortie | 28 January 2015 versus 29 November 2011 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1058 MHz versus 732 MHz |
| Pipelines | 512 versus 448 |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt versus 210 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 1280 MB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5000 MHz versus 3800 MHz |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
- Environ 14% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 41.0 GTexel / s versus 35.97 GTexel / s
- Environ 14% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,311.7 gflops versus 1,151 gflops
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 34.324 versus 31.949
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1181.463 versus 466.139
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.978 versus 2.629
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 58.37 versus 25.411
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 121.575 versus 117.722
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4590 versus 4080
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2133 versus 1721
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3333 versus 3288
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4590 versus 4080
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2133 versus 1721
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3333 versus 3288
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 41.0 GTexel / s versus 35.97 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,311.7 gflops versus 1,151 gflops |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 34.324 versus 31.949 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1181.463 versus 466.139 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.978 versus 2.629 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 58.37 versus 25.411 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 121.575 versus 117.722 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4590 versus 4080 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2133 versus 1721 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3333 versus 3288 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4590 versus 4080 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2133 versus 1721 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3333 versus 3288 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K1200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
| 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 K1200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2949 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 579 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8824 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 31.949 | 34.324 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 466.139 | 1181.463 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.629 | 3.978 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 25.411 | 58.37 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 117.722 | 121.575 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4080 | 4590 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1721 | 2133 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3288 | 3333 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4080 | 4590 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1721 | 2133 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3288 | 3333 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4197 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro K1200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi 2.0 |
| Nom de code | GM107 | GF110 |
| Date de sortie | 28 January 2015 | 29 November 2011 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $321.97 | $289 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 798 | 801 |
| Prix maintenant | $289.99 | |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 13.00 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1124 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1058 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,151 gflops | 1,311.7 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 448 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 35.97 GTexel / s | 41.0 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 210 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 3,000 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x mini-DisplayPort, mDP mDP mDP mDP | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
| Nombre d’écrans á la fois | 4 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 160 mm | 267 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2x 6-pin |
| Largeur | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 1280 MB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5000 MHz | 3800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | 128 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 152.0 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Desktop Management | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro K1200 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro K1200 vs
ATIFirePro 2260 PCI
NVIDIAQuadro K1200 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4330
NVIDIAQuadro K1200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
NVIDIAQuadro K1200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2200
NVIDIAQuadro K1200 vs
IntelIris Pro Graphics 6200
NVIDIAQuadro K1200 vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega 11
