NVIDIA Quadro M1000M versus NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro M1000M and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 65% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 993 MHz versus 601 MHz
- 2.5x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 40 Watt versus 100 Watt
- Environ 79% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5012 MHz versus 2800 MHz
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 2854 versus 1915
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 307 versus 298
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 8849 versus 5827
- 3.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 38.33 versus 10.054
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 721.18 versus 544.601
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.056 versus 1.46
- Environ 94% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 42.938 versus 22.103
- 3.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 137.786 versus 36.553
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4196 versus 3855
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4196 versus 3855
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 18 August 2015 versus 1 June 2012 |
Vitesse du noyau | 993 MHz versus 601 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt versus 100 Watt |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz versus 2800 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2854 versus 1915 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 307 versus 298 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8849 versus 5827 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 38.33 versus 10.054 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 721.18 versus 544.601 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.056 versus 1.46 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 42.938 versus 22.103 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 137.786 versus 36.553 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4196 versus 3855 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4196 versus 3855 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
- Environ 51% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 48.08 GTexel / s versus 31.78 GTexel / s
- Environ 88% de pipelines plus haut: 960 versus 512
- Environ 13% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,154 gflops versus 1,017 gflops
- 2048x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB / 4 GB
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 4957 versus 3716
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 4470 versus 3358
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 4957 versus 3716
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 4470 versus 3358
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 48.08 GTexel / s versus 31.78 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 960 versus 512 |
Performance á point flottant | 1,154 gflops versus 1,017 gflops |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB / 4 GB |
Référence | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 4957 versus 3716 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 4470 versus 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 4957 versus 3716 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 4470 versus 3358 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
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 M1000M | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2854 | 1915 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 307 | 298 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8849 | 5827 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 38.33 | 10.054 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 721.18 | 544.601 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.056 | 1.46 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 42.938 | 22.103 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 137.786 | 36.553 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4196 | 3855 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3716 | 4957 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 4470 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4196 | 3855 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3716 | 4957 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 4470 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1002 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA Quadro M1000M | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
Nom de code | GM107 | GK104 |
Date de sortie | 18 August 2015 | 1 June 2012 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $200.89 | |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 848 | 851 |
Prix maintenant | $203.37 | |
Genre | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 16.10 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1072 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 993 MHz | 601 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 1,017 gflops | 1,154 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 512 | 960 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 31.78 GTexel / s | 48.08 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt | 100 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 3,540 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
Taille du laptop | large | large |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Shader Model | 5.0 | |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB / 4 GB | 4 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 80 GB / s | 89.6 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 2800 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus |