NVIDIA Quadro M4000M versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A 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 M4000M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 80% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 78 GTexel / s versus 43.4 GTexel / s
- 2x plus de pipelines: 1,280 versus 640
- Environ 80% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,496 gflops versus 1,389 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6146 versus 3465
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 413 versus 312
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 19918 versus 12495
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 81.104 versus 49.772
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1235.338 versus 757.295
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.157 versus 3.67
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 68.443 versus 49.875
- Environ 40% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 251.464 versus 179.567
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7602 versus 5157
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7602 versus 5157
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 18 August 2015 versus 13 March 2015 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 78 GTexel / s versus 43.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1,280 versus 640 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,496 gflops versus 1,389 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6146 versus 3465 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 413 versus 312 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19918 versus 12495 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 81.104 versus 49.772 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1235.338 versus 757.295 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.157 versus 3.67 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 68.443 versus 49.875 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 251.464 versus 179.567 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7602 versus 5157 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7602 versus 5157 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A
- Environ 6% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1029 MHz versus 975 MHz
- Environ 7% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1085 MHz versus 1013 MHz
- Environ 33% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 100 Watt
- 2.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 5834 versus 2749
- 2.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 7859 versus 3093
- 2.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 5834 versus 2749
- 2.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 7859 versus 3093
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz versus 975 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1085 MHz versus 1013 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 100 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 5834 versus 2749 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 7859 versus 3093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 5834 versus 2749 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 7859 versus 3093 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A
| 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 M4000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6146 | 3465 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 413 | 312 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19918 | 12495 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 81.104 | 49.772 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1235.338 | 757.295 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.157 | 3.67 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 68.443 | 49.875 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 251.464 | 179.567 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7602 | 5157 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2749 | 5834 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3093 | 7859 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7602 | 5157 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2749 | 5834 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3093 | 7859 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro M4000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | GM204 | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 18 August 2015 | 13 March 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 551 | 548 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1013 MHz | 1085 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 975 MHz | 1029 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,496 gflops | 1,389 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1,280 | 640 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 78 GTexel / s | 43.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 5,200 million | 1,870 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | 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 | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 160 GB / s | 80.19 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 5012 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 M4000M avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
ATIRadeon X1300 PRO
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 670
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8970M
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
NVIDIAGRID K260Q
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2200M
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A
