NVIDIA Quadro K4000M versus AMD FirePro V7900
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K4000M and AMD FirePro V7900 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 51% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 100 Watt versus 151 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.46 versus 1.309
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3855 versus 2996
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 4957 versus 3710
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 4470 versus 3354
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3855 versus 2996
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 4957 versus 3710
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 4470 versus 3354
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 1 June 2012 versus 24 May 2011 |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt versus 151 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.46 versus 1.309 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3855 versus 2996 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 4957 versus 3710 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 4470 versus 3354 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3855 versus 2996 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 4957 versus 3710 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 4470 versus 3354 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro V7900
- Environ 21% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 725 MHz versus 601 MHz
- Environ 21% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 58.0 GTexel / s versus 48.08 GTexel / s
- Environ 33% de pipelines plus haut: 1280 versus 960
- Environ 61% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,856.0 gflops versus 1,154 gflops
- Environ 79% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5000 MHz versus 2800 MHz
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 2305 versus 1903
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 336 versus 296
- 4.8x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 27733 versus 5827
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.134 versus 10.054
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 676.409 versus 544.601
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 36.678 versus 22.103
- 4.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 171.25 versus 36.553
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 725 MHz versus 601 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 58.0 GTexel / s versus 48.08 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1280 versus 960 |
Performance á point flottant | 1,856.0 gflops versus 1,154 gflops |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5000 MHz versus 2800 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2305 versus 1903 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 336 versus 296 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 27733 versus 5827 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.134 versus 10.054 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 676.409 versus 544.601 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 36.678 versus 22.103 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 171.25 versus 36.553 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
GPU 2: AMD FirePro V7900
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 K4000M | AMD FirePro V7900 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1903 | 2305 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 296 | 336 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5827 | 27733 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.054 | 14.134 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 544.601 | 676.409 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.46 | 1.309 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 22.103 | 36.678 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 36.553 | 171.25 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3855 | 2996 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 4957 | 3710 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 4470 | 3354 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3855 | 2996 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 4957 | 3710 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 4470 | 3354 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA Quadro K4000M | AMD FirePro V7900 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Kepler | TeraScale 3 |
Nom de code | GK104 | Cayman |
Date de sortie | 1 June 2012 | 24 May 2011 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 851 | 852 |
Genre | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 601 MHz | 725 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 1,154 gflops | 1,856.0 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 960 | 1280 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 48.08 GTexel / s | 58.0 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 151 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 3,540 million | 2,640 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
Compte DisplayPort | 4 | |
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
StereoOutput3D | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 2.1 x16 | |
Facteur de forme | Full Height / Full Length | |
Longeur | 279 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 89.6 GB / s | 160 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 2800 MHz | 5000 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 |