NVIDIA Quadro K2000 versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 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 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 12% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 732.7 gflops versus 652.8 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- 2.2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1580 versus 1204
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 384 versus 235
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4071 versus 3793
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.332 versus 9.947
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.093 versus 0.982
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 38.219 versus 23.111
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 versus 2283
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1974 versus 1913
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 versus 2283
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1974 versus 1913
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 1 March 2013 versus 22 March 2012 |
Performance á point flottant | 732.7 gflops versus 652.8 gflops |
Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1580 versus 1204 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 384 versus 235 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 versus 3793 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.332 versus 9.947 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.093 versus 0.982 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.219 versus 23.111 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 versus 2283 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1974 versus 1913 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 versus 2283 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1974 versus 1913 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
- Environ 13% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 45 Watt versus 51 Watt
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 340.824 versus 265.424
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 18.773 versus 15.009
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3299 versus 1631
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3299 versus 1631
Caractéristiques | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt versus 51 Watt |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 340.824 versus 265.424 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 18.773 versus 15.009 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3299 versus 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3299 versus 1631 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
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 650M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1580 | 1204 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 384 | 235 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 | 3793 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.332 | 9.947 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 265.424 | 340.824 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.093 | 0.982 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.009 | 18.773 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.219 | 23.111 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 | 2283 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1631 | 3299 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1974 | 1913 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 | 2283 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1631 | 3299 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1974 | 1913 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 414 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
Nom de code | GK107 | GK107 |
Date de sortie | 1 March 2013 | 22 March 2012 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $599 | |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1212 | 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 | 652.8 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 30.53 GTexel / s | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt | 45 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | 1,270 million |
Vitesse augmenté | 950 MHz | |
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 | 1 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 |