NVIDIA Quadro K4200 versus AMD FirePro W5100
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and AMD FirePro W5100 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 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 97% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 87.81 GTexel / s versus 44.64 GTexel / s
- Environ 75% de pipelines plus haut: 1344 versus 768
- Environ 48% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,107 gflops versus 1,428 gflops
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4340 versus 2978
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 12321 versus 11724
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6373 versus 4397
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6373 versus 4397
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 July 2014 versus 31 March 2014 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 87.81 GTexel / s versus 44.64 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1344 versus 768 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,107 gflops versus 1,428 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4340 versus 2978 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12321 versus 11724 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6373 versus 4397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6373 versus 4397 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro W5100
- Environ 21% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 930 MHz versus 771 MHz
- 2.2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 108 Watt
- Environ 11% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 6000 MHz versus 5400 MHz
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 531 versus 498
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 35.15 versus 33.016
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 838.518 versus 736.063
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.199 versus 2.73
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 57.354 versus 31.588
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 163.258 versus 70.194
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3688 versus 3382
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 versus 3311
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3688 versus 3382
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 versus 3311
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 930 MHz versus 771 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 108 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6000 MHz versus 5400 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 531 versus 498 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 35.15 versus 33.016 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 838.518 versus 736.063 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.199 versus 2.73 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 57.354 versus 31.588 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 163.258 versus 70.194 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3688 versus 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 versus 3311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3688 versus 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 versus 3311 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K4200
GPU 2: AMD FirePro W5100
| 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 K4200 | AMD FirePro W5100 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4340 | 2978 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 498 | 531 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12321 | 11724 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 33.016 | 35.15 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 736.063 | 838.518 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.73 | 3.199 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 31.588 | 57.354 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 70.194 | 163.258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6373 | 4397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3382 | 3688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3311 | 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6373 | 4397 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3382 | 3688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3311 | 3356 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | AMD FirePro W5100 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 2.0 |
| Nom de code | GK104 | Bonaire |
| Date de sortie | 22 July 2014 | 31 March 2014 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $854.99 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 681 | 627 |
| 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 | 930 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,107 gflops | 1,428 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1344 | 768 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 87.81 GTexel / s | 44.64 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 108 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,540 million | 2,080 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
| Compte DisplayPort | 4 | |
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Sortie du composant vidéo HD | ||
| StereoOutput3D | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 241 mm | 171 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Facteur de forme | Full Height / Half Length | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 172.8 GB / s | 96 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5400 MHz | 6000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro K4200 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
AMDFirePro S9000
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 680MX
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8950 OEM
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
AMDFirePro W5170M
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M600M
NVIDIAQuadro K4200 vs
AMDRadeon Pro 455
