NVIDIA Quadro M2000M versus NVIDIA Quadro K4100M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and NVIDIA Quadro K4100M 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 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 46% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1029 MHz versus 706 MHz
- Environ 82% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 55 Watt versus 100 Watt
- Environ 57% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5012 MHz versus 3200 MHz
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3446 versus 2772
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 336 versus 325
- Environ 93% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 47.281 versus 24.487
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 782.113 versus 600.985
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.5 versus 2.281
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.048 versus 35.452
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 172.896 versus 61.984
- 4.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4920 versus 1105
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 versus 1974
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3355 versus 3246
- 4.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4920 versus 1105
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 versus 1974
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3355 versus 3246
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 3 December 2015 versus 23 July 2013 |
Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz versus 706 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt versus 100 Watt |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz versus 3200 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3446 versus 2772 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 336 versus 325 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.281 versus 24.487 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 782.113 versus 600.985 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.5 versus 2.281 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.048 versus 35.452 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 172.896 versus 61.984 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4920 versus 1105 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 versus 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 versus 3246 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4920 versus 1105 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 versus 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 versus 3246 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K4100M
- Environ 54% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 67.78 GTexel / s versus 43.92 GTexel / s
- Environ 80% de pipelines plus haut: 1152 versus 640
- Environ 16% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,627 gflops versus 1,405 gflops
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 8831 versus 8148
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 67.78 GTexel / s versus 43.92 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1152 versus 640 |
Performance á point flottant | 1,627 gflops versus 1,405 gflops |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8831 versus 8148 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4100M
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 | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3446 | 2772 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 336 | 325 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8148 | 8831 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.281 | 24.487 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 782.113 | 600.985 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.5 | 2.281 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.048 | 35.452 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 172.896 | 61.984 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4920 | 1105 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 3246 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4920 | 1105 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 3246 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
Nom de code | GM107 | GK104 |
Date de sortie | 3 December 2015 | 23 July 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 700 | 1074 |
Genre | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $1,499 | |
Prix maintenant | $379.99 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 9.50 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1098 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz | 706 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 1,405 gflops | 1,627 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 640 | 1152 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 43.92 GTexel / s | 67.78 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 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 | 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 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 5.0 | 5 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 80 GB / s | 102.4 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 3200 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus |