NVIDIA Quadro K2000D versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M 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 K2000D
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 60% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 954 MHz versus 598 MHz
- Environ 14% de pipelines plus haut: 384 versus 336
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 47% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 51 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 34% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 2 GB versus 1526 MB
- 2.7x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 1500 MHz
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 406 versus 303
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 1 March 2013 versus 22 March 2012 |
Vitesse du noyau | 954 MHz versus 598 MHz |
Pipelines | 384 versus 336 |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1526 MB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 1500 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 406 versus 303 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M
- Environ 10% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 33.5 billion / sec versus 30.53 GTexel / s
- Environ 10% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 803.7 gflops versus 732.7 gflops
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1746 versus 1586
- Environ 60% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 6357 versus 3973
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 15.053 versus 14.283
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 588.645 versus 386.006
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.72 versus 1.018
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.916 versus 15.605
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 52.899 versus 31.155
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2731 versus 2646
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3627 versus 3493
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2731 versus 2646
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3627 versus 3493
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 33.5 billion / sec versus 30.53 GTexel / s |
Performance á point flottant | 803.7 gflops versus 732.7 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1746 versus 1586 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6357 versus 3973 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 15.053 versus 14.283 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 588.645 versus 386.006 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.72 versus 1.018 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.916 versus 15.605 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 52.899 versus 31.155 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2731 versus 2646 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3627 versus 3493 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 versus 3339 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2731 versus 2646 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3627 versus 3493 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 versus 3339 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000D
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M
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 K2000D | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1586 | 1746 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 406 | 303 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3973 | 6357 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.283 | 15.053 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 386.006 | 588.645 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.018 | 1.72 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.605 | 35.916 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.155 | 52.899 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2646 | 2731 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3493 | 3627 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3339 | 3346 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2646 | 2731 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3493 | 3627 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3339 | 3346 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2062 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA Quadro K2000D | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Fermi 2.0 |
Nom de code | GK107 | GF114 |
Date de sortie | 1 March 2013 | 22 March 2012 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $599 | |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 978 | 980 |
Prix maintenant | $464 | |
Genre | Workstation | Laptop |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 4.14 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 954 MHz | 598 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 732.7 gflops | 803.7 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 336 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 30.53 GTexel / s | 33.5 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt | 75 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | 1,950 million |
Noyaux CUDA | 336 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Longeur | 202 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0 | |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Options SLI | 2-way | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 1526 MB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 64 GB / s | 72.0 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 192bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz | 1500 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
CUDA | ||
FXAA | ||
SLI |