NVIDIA Quadro K2000 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 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 5 mois plus tard
- 2.7x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 51 Watt versus 140 Watt
- 666.7x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 6.0 GB/s
| Date de sortie | 1 March 2013 versus 6 September 2012 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt versus 140 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 6.0 GB/s |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660
- Environ 3% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 980 MHz versus 954 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 78.4 billion / sec versus 30.53 GTexel / s
- 2.5x plus de pipelines: 960 versus 384
- 2.7x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,981 gflops versus 732.7 gflops
- 2.5x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4017 versus 1578
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 487 versus 385
- 2.8x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 11364 versus 4071
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 30.505 versus 14.332
- 2.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 705.293 versus 265.424
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.085 versus 1.093
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.416 versus 15.009
- Environ 64% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 62.69 versus 38.219
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3581 versus 2446
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3690 versus 1631
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3365 versus 1974
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3581 versus 2446
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3690 versus 1631
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3365 versus 1974
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 980 MHz versus 954 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 78.4 billion / sec versus 30.53 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 960 versus 384 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,981 gflops versus 732.7 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4017 versus 1578 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 487 versus 385 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 11364 versus 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 30.505 versus 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 705.293 versus 265.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.085 versus 1.093 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.416 versus 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 62.69 versus 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3581 versus 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3690 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3365 versus 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3581 versus 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3690 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3365 versus 1974 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660
| 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 GTX 660 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1578 | 4017 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 385 | 487 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 | 11364 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.332 | 30.505 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 265.424 | 705.293 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.093 | 3.085 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.009 | 35.416 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.219 | 62.69 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 | 3581 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1631 | 3690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1974 | 3365 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 | 3581 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1631 | 3690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1974 | 3365 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 1307 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GK107 | GK106 |
| Date de sortie | 1 March 2013 | 6 September 2012 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $599 | $229 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1206 | 740 |
| Prix maintenant | $164.99 | $349.99 |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 11.74 | 14.35 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 954 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 732.7 gflops | 1,981 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 960 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 30.53 GTexel / s | 78.4 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt | 140 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | 2,540 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1033 MHz | |
| Noyaux CUDA | 960 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI..., 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
| Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
| Soutien de plusiers moniteurs | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 202 mm | 9.5" (24.1 cm) |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | One 6-pin |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Hauteur | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 64 GB / s | 144.2 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 192-bit GDDR5 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Gaming | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| FXAA | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| SLI | ||
| TXAA | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro K2000 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
ATIRadeon HD 5750
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6490M
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 625M
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
IntelIris Graphics 5100
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8670D
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 830M
