NVIDIA Quadro M2000M versus AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 21% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1029 MHz versus 850 MHz
- Environ 19% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1098 MHz versus 925 MHz
- 3.6x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 55 Watt versus 200 Watt
- Environ 33% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 4 GB versus 3 GB
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3453 versus 2793
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 47.281 versus 40.311
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.5 versus 3.328
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4920 versus 4396
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4920 versus 4396
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 3 December 2015 versus 8 January 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz versus 850 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1098 MHz versus 925 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt versus 200 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 3 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz versus 5000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3453 versus 2793 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.281 versus 40.311 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.5 versus 3.328 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4920 versus 4396 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 versus 3705 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 versus 3348 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4920 versus 4396 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 versus 3705 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 versus 3348 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 103.6 GTexel / s versus 43.92 GTexel / s
- 2.8x plus de pipelines: 1792 versus 640
- 2.4x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,315 gflops versus 1,405 gflops
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 366 versus 340
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 13791 versus 8148
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.334 versus 782.113
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.205 versus 51.048
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 181.508 versus 172.896
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 103.6 GTexel / s versus 43.92 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1792 versus 640 |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,315 gflops versus 1,405 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 366 versus 340 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 13791 versus 8148 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.334 versus 782.113 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.205 versus 51.048 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 181.508 versus 172.896 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM
| 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 M2000M | AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3453 | 2793 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 340 | 366 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8148 | 13791 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.281 | 40.311 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 782.113 | 795.334 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.5 | 3.328 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.048 | 64.205 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 172.896 | 181.508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4920 | 4396 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3705 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 3348 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4920 | 4396 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3705 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 3348 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | GM107 | Tahiti |
| Date de sortie | 3 December 2015 | 8 January 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 720 | 722 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1098 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,405 gflops | 3,315 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 1792 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 43.92 GTexel / s | 103.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt | 200 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,870 million | 4,313 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2x 6-pin |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80 GB / s | 240.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro M2000M avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
ATIRadeon X300 SE
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6100 + nForce 400
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 6850 X2
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8950 OEM
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 965M
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
AMDRadeon Pro 555
