NVIDIA Quadro K4100M versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 545
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K4100M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 2 mois plus tard
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 67.78 GTexel / s versus 17.28 GTexel / s
- 8x plus de pipelines: 1152 versus 144
- 3.9x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,627 gflops versus 414.7 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- 2.7x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 1536 MB
- 2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 3200 MHz versus 1600 MHz
- 2.5x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 2762 versus 1105
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 328 versus 325
- 2.4x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 8777 versus 3673
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 24.487 versus 10.32
- Environ 96% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 600.985 versus 306.536
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.281 versus 0.883
- Environ 91% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.452 versus 18.564
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 61.984 versus 35.369
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 23 July 2013 versus 14 May 2011 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 67.78 GTexel / s versus 17.28 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1152 versus 144 |
Performance á point flottant | 1,627 gflops versus 414.7 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 1536 MB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 3200 MHz versus 1600 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2762 versus 1105 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 328 versus 325 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8777 versus 3673 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 24.487 versus 10.32 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 600.985 versus 306.536 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.281 versus 0.883 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.452 versus 18.564 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 61.984 versus 35.369 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 545
- Environ 2% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 720 MHz versus 706 MHz
- Environ 43% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 70 Watt versus 100 Watt
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1893 versus 1105
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3323 versus 1974
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 versus 3246
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1893 versus 1105
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3323 versus 1974
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 versus 3246
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 720 MHz versus 706 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 70 Watt versus 100 Watt |
Référence | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1893 versus 1105 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3323 versus 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 versus 3246 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1893 versus 1105 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3323 versus 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 versus 3246 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K4100M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 545
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 K4100M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2762 | 1105 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 328 | 325 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8777 | 3673 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 24.487 | 10.32 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 600.985 | 306.536 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.281 | 0.883 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.452 | 18.564 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 61.984 | 35.369 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1105 | 1893 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1974 | 3323 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3246 | 3356 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1105 | 1893 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1974 | 3323 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3246 | 3356 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA Quadro K4100M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Fermi 2.0 |
Nom de code | GK104 | GF116 |
Date de sortie | 23 July 2013 | 14 May 2011 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $1,499 | $149 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1084 | 1086 |
Prix maintenant | $379.99 | $55.59 |
Genre | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 9.50 | 26.90 |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 706 MHz | 720 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 1,627 gflops | 414.7 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 1152 | 144 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 67.78 GTexel / s | 17.28 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 70 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 3,540 million | 1,170 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Longeur | 145 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Shader Model | 5 | |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 1536 MB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 102.4 GB / s | 38.4 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 3200 MHz | 1600 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus |