NVIDIA Quadro K4200 versus AMD FirePro D300
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and AMD FirePro D300 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 K4200
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 29% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 87.81 GTexel / s versus 68 GTexel / s
- Environ 5% de pipelines plus haut: 1344 versus 1280
- Environ 39% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 108 Watt versus 150 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 6% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5400 MHz versus 5080 MHz
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6373 versus 6054
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6373 versus 6054
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 July 2014 versus 18 January 2014 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 87.81 GTexel / s versus 68 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1344 versus 1280 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 108 Watt versus 150 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5400 MHz versus 5080 MHz |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6373 versus 6054 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6373 versus 6054 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro D300
- Environ 10% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 850 MHz versus 771 MHz
- Environ 3% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,176 gflops versus 2,107 gflops
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 20117 versus 12186
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 51.183 versus 33.016
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1192.547 versus 736.063
- Environ 91% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.209 versus 2.73
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 78.541 versus 31.588
- 3.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 242.179 versus 70.194
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3351 versus 3311
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3351 versus 3311
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 850 MHz versus 771 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,176 gflops versus 2,107 gflops |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 20117 versus 12186 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 51.183 versus 33.016 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1192.547 versus 736.063 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.209 versus 2.73 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 78.541 versus 31.588 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 242.179 versus 70.194 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3397 versus 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3351 versus 3311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3397 versus 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3351 versus 3311 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K4200
GPU 2: AMD FirePro D300
| 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 K4200 | AMD FirePro D300 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4326 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 502 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12186 | 20117 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 33.016 | 51.183 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 736.063 | 1192.547 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.73 | 5.209 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 31.588 | 78.541 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 70.194 | 242.179 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6373 | 6054 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3382 | 3397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3311 | 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6373 | 6054 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3382 | 3397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3311 | 3351 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | AMD FirePro D300 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | GK104 | Pitcairn |
| Date de sortie | 22 July 2014 | 18 January 2014 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $854.99 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 702 | 703 |
| Prix maintenant | $446.99 | |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 11.92 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 784 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 771 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,107 gflops | 2,176 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1344 | 1280 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 87.81 GTexel / s | 68 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 108 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,540 million | 2,800 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 241 mm | 242 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 172.8 GB / s | 162.6 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5400 MHz | 5080 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro K4200 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K5000
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8550D IGP
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
AMDFirePro D300
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 Mobile
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
AMDRadeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
