NVIDIA Quadro K2200 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K2200 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. 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 K2200
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 7 mois plus tard
- Environ 43% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1046 MHz versus 732 MHz
- Environ 10% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 44.96 GTexel / s versus 41.0 GTexel / s
- Environ 43% de pipelines plus haut: 640 versus 448
- Environ 10% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,439 gflops versus 1,311.7 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- 3.1x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 68 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: 5012 MHz versus 3800 MHz
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 40.695 versus 34.324
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 166.26 versus 121.575
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4921 versus 4590
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4921 versus 4590
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 July 2014 versus 29 November 2011 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1046 MHz versus 732 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 44.96 GTexel / s versus 41.0 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 versus 448 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,439 gflops versus 1,311.7 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 68 Watt versus 210 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 1280 MB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz versus 3800 MHz |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 40.695 versus 34.324 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 166.26 versus 121.575 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4921 versus 4590 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4921 versus 4590 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1181.463 versus 588.094
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.978 versus 3.205
- Environ 92% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 58.37 versus 30.455
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2133 versus 1577
- Environ 99% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3333 versus 1671
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2133 versus 1577
- Environ 99% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3333 versus 1671
- 3.5x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 4197 versus 1193
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1181.463 versus 588.094 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.978 versus 3.205 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 58.37 versus 30.455 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2133 versus 1577 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3333 versus 1671 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2133 versus 1577 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3333 versus 1671 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4197 versus 1193 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2200
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) |
|
|
||||
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score |
|
|
| Nom | NVIDIA Quadro K2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3569 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 548 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12020 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 40.695 | 34.324 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 588.094 | 1181.463 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.205 | 3.978 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.455 | 58.37 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 166.26 | 121.575 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4921 | 4590 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1577 | 2133 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1671 | 3333 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4921 | 4590 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1577 | 2133 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1671 | 3333 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1193 | 4197 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro K2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi 2.0 |
| Nom de code | GM107 | GF110 |
| Date de sortie | 22 July 2014 | 29 November 2011 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $395.75 | $289 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 801 | 802 |
| Prix maintenant | $343.99 | |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 13.01 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1124 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1046 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,439 gflops | 1,311.7 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 448 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 44.96 GTexel / s | 41.0 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 68 Watt | 210 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 3,000 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 202 mm | 267 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 1280 MB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.19 GB / s | 152.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 3800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro K2200 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro K2200 vs
ATIFirePro 2260 PCI
NVIDIAQuadro K2200 vs
ATIRadeon HD 4250
NVIDIAQuadro K2200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
NVIDIAQuadro K2200 vs
IntelIris Pro Graphics 6200
NVIDIAQuadro K2200 vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega 11
NVIDIAQuadro K2200 vs
AMDRadeon RX 640
