NVIDIA Quadro K2000 versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M 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 K2000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 34% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 30.53 GTexel / s versus 22.7 billion / sec
- Environ 35% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 732.7 gflops versus 544.5 gflops
- 2.2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1580 versus 933
- 2.4x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 384 versus 159
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4071 versus 2642
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.332 versus 8.493
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.093 versus 0.863
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 38.219 versus 19.116
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 versus 1913
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 versus 1913
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 1 March 2013 versus 1 October 2012 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 30.53 GTexel / s versus 22.7 billion / sec |
| Performance á point flottant | 732.7 gflops versus 544.5 gflops |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1580 versus 933 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 384 versus 159 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 versus 2642 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.332 versus 8.493 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.093 versus 0.863 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.219 versus 19.116 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 versus 1913 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 versus 1913 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M
- Environ 59% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 32 Watt versus 51 Watt
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 285.42 versus 265.424
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 17.242 versus 15.009
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3670 versus 1631
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3341 versus 1974
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3670 versus 1631
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3341 versus 1974
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 32 Watt versus 51 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 285.42 versus 265.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 17.242 versus 15.009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3670 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3341 versus 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3670 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3341 versus 1974 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M
| 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 K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1580 | 933 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 384 | 159 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 | 2642 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.332 | 8.493 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 265.424 | 285.42 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.093 | 0.863 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.009 | 17.242 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.219 | 19.116 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 | 1913 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1631 | 3670 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1974 | 3341 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 | 1913 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1631 | 3670 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1974 | 3341 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GK107 | GK107 |
| Date de sortie | 1 March 2013 | 1 October 2012 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $599 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1213 | 1215 |
| Prix maintenant | $164.99 | |
| Genre | Workstation | Laptop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 11.74 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 954 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 732.7 gflops | 544.5 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 30.53 GTexel / s | 22.7 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt | 32 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | 1,270 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 384 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 202 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 64 GB / s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | DDR3\GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro K2000 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 645M
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 625M
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8670D
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
AMDFirePro W2100
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
AMDRadeon R7 M260X
