NVIDIA Quadro K5200 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 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 K5200
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 67% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 150 Watt versus 250 Watt
- 2.7x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 3 GB
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 47.147 versus 30.133
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3708 versus 3582
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 versus 3331
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3708 versus 3582
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 versus 3331
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 July 2014 versus 10 September 2013 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt versus 250 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 3 GB |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.147 versus 30.133 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3708 versus 3582 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 versus 3331 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3708 versus 3582 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 versus 3331 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
- Environ 29% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 863 MHz versus 667 MHz
- Environ 17% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 902 MHz versus 771 MHz
- Environ 17% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 173.2 GTexel / s versus 148.0 GTexel / s
- Environ 17% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 4,156 gflops versus 3,553 gflops
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1441.971 versus 1278.433
- Environ 84% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.36 versus 3.996
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.264 versus 50.08
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 148.747 versus 115.307
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9209 versus 5946
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9209 versus 5946
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 863 MHz versus 667 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 902 MHz versus 771 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 173.2 GTexel / s versus 148.0 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 4,156 gflops versus 3,553 gflops |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1441.971 versus 1278.433 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.36 versus 3.996 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.264 versus 50.08 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 148.747 versus 115.307 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9209 versus 5946 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9209 versus 5946 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K5200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
| 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 K5200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6135 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 553 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19220 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.147 | 30.133 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1278.433 | 1441.971 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.996 | 7.36 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 50.08 | 64.264 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 115.307 | 148.747 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5946 | 9209 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3708 | 3582 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3331 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5946 | 9209 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3708 | 3582 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3331 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro K5200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GK110B | GK110B |
| Date de sortie | 22 July 2014 | 10 September 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $1,699.74 | $649 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 535 | 538 |
| Prix maintenant | $523.66 | |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 14.51 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 771 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 667 MHz | 863 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,553 gflops | 4,156 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2304 | 2304 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 148.0 GTexel / s | 173.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 7,080 million | 7,080 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | 3 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 192.3 GB / s | 288.4 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz | 6008 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro K5200 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
ATIRadeon X850 XT
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9500M GE
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 740A
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M4000
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook)
