NVIDIA Quadro K4200 versus AMD FirePro D500
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and AMD FirePro D500 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 6% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 771 MHz versus 725 MHz
- Environ 26% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 87.81 GTexel / s versus 69.6 GTexel / s
- 2.5x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 108 Watt versus 274 Watt
- Environ 33% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 4 GB versus 3 GB
- Environ 6% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5400 MHz versus 5080 MHz
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6373 versus 6020
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6373 versus 6020
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 July 2014 versus 18 January 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 771 MHz versus 725 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 87.81 GTexel / s versus 69.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 108 Watt versus 274 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 3 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5400 MHz versus 5080 MHz |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6373 versus 6020 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6373 versus 6020 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro D500
- Environ 14% de pipelines plus haut: 1536 versus 1344
- Environ 6% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,227 gflops versus 2,107 gflops
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 17989 versus 12321
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 49.776 versus 33.016
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1063.081 versus 736.063
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.568 versus 2.73
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 65.789 versus 31.588
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3685 versus 3382
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3349 versus 3311
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3685 versus 3382
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3349 versus 3311
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 1536 versus 1344 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,227 gflops versus 2,107 gflops |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 17989 versus 12321 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 49.776 versus 33.016 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1063.081 versus 736.063 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.568 versus 2.73 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.789 versus 31.588 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3685 versus 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 versus 3311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3685 versus 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 versus 3311 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K4200
GPU 2: AMD FirePro D500
| 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) |
|
|
||||
| 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 D500 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4327 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 502 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12321 | 17989 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 33.016 | 49.776 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 736.063 | 1063.081 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.73 | 4.568 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 31.588 | 65.789 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 70.194 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6373 | 6020 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3382 | 3685 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3311 | 3349 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6373 | 6020 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3382 | 3685 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3311 | 3349 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | AMD FirePro D500 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | GK104 | Tahiti |
| Date de sortie | 22 July 2014 | 18 January 2014 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $854.99 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 693 | 694 |
| 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 | 725 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,107 gflops | 2,227 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1344 | 1536 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 87.81 GTexel / s | 69.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 108 Watt | 274 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,540 million | 4,313 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 241 mm | 279 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 | 3 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 172.8 GB / s | 243.8 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 384 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
AMDRadeon HD 6970
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
AMDFirePro S9000
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
AMDFirePro D500
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M600M
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
AMDRadeon Pro 455
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce MX350
