NVIDIA Quadro K3100M versus Intel HD Graphics 4600
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and Intel HD Graphics 4600 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 K3100M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 77% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 706 MHz versus 400 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 45.18 GTexel / s versus 5 GTexel / s
- 38.4x plus de pipelines: 768 versus 20
- 21.7x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,084 gflops versus 50 gflops
- 3.6x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 2270 versus 630
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 323 versus 314
- Environ 89% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 6076 versus 3210
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 19.239 versus 8.844
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 426.305 versus 171.17
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.468 versus 1.115
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 15.251 versus 10.385
- 3.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 38.135 versus 12.361
- 3.8x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3721 versus 988
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2502 versus 1702
- 3.8x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3721 versus 988
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2502 versus 1702
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 23 July 2013 versus 3 June 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 706 MHz versus 400 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 45.18 GTexel / s versus 5 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 768 versus 20 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,084 gflops versus 50 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2270 versus 630 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 323 versus 314 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6076 versus 3210 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 19.239 versus 8.844 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 426.305 versus 171.17 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.468 versus 1.115 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.251 versus 10.385 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.135 versus 12.361 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3721 versus 988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2502 versus 1702 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3721 versus 988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2502 versus 1702 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 4600
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 67% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 45 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2808 versus 2616
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2808 versus 2616
| Caractéristiques | |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2808 versus 2616 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2808 versus 2616 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K3100M
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4600
| 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 K3100M | Intel HD Graphics 4600 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2270 | 630 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 323 | 314 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6076 | 3210 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 19.239 | 8.844 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 426.305 | 171.17 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.468 | 1.115 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.251 | 10.385 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.135 | 12.361 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3721 | 988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2502 | 1702 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2616 | 2808 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3721 | 988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2502 | 1702 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2616 | 2808 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 194 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro K3100M | Intel HD Graphics 4600 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 7.5 |
| Nom de code | GK104 | Haswell GT2 |
| Date de sortie | 23 July 2013 | 3 June 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $1,999 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1060 | 1359 |
| Prix maintenant | $1,999 | |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 1.38 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 706 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,084 gflops | 50 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 22 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 20 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 45.18 GTexel / s | 5 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,540 million | 392 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1250 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 102.4 GB / s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 3200 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 1 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro K3100M avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro K3100M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9800 GT
NVIDIAQuadro K3100M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4550
NVIDIAQuadro K3100M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 460 OEM
NVIDIAQuadro K3100M vs
AMDRadeon R9 M275X
NVIDIAQuadro K3100M vs
IntelIris Graphics 540
NVIDIAQuadro K3100M vs
AMDFirePro W4190M
