NVIDIA Quadro M5000M versus AMD Radeon R9 285
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro M5000M and AMD Radeon R9 285 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 M5000M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 6% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 975 MHz versus 918 MHz
- Environ 90% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 100 Watt versus 190 Watt
- 4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6992 versus 6680
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 95.613 versus 72.799
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.869 versus 6.369
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9399 versus 6474
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3685 versus 3043
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3339 versus 2782
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9399 versus 6474
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3685 versus 3043
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3339 versus 2782
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 18 August 2015 versus 2 September 2014 |
Vitesse du noyau | 975 MHz versus 918 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt versus 190 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 2 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6992 versus 6680 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 95.613 versus 72.799 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.869 versus 6.369 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9399 versus 6474 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3685 versus 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3339 versus 2782 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9399 versus 6474 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3685 versus 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3339 versus 2782 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 285
- Environ 10% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 102.8 GTexel / s versus 93.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 17% de pipelines plus haut: 1792 versus 1,536
- Environ 10% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,290 gflops versus 2,995 gflops
- Environ 10% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5500 MHz versus 5012 MHz
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 597 versus 475
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.632 versus 1341.18
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 91.954 versus 83.683
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 391.399 versus 366.321
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 102.8 GTexel / s versus 93.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1792 versus 1,536 |
Performance á point flottant | 3,290 gflops versus 2,995 gflops |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5500 MHz versus 5012 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 597 versus 475 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.632 versus 1341.18 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.954 versus 83.683 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 391.399 versus 366.321 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M5000M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 285
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
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 M5000M | AMD Radeon R9 285 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6992 | 6680 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 475 | 597 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 22846 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 95.613 | 72.799 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1341.18 | 1474.632 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.869 | 6.369 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 83.683 | 91.954 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 366.321 | 391.399 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9399 | 6474 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3685 | 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3339 | 2782 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9399 | 6474 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3685 | 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3339 | 2782 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 2778 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA Quadro M5000M | AMD Radeon R9 285 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |
Nom de code | GM204 | Tonga |
Date de sortie | 18 August 2015 | 2 September 2014 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 463 | 464 |
Genre | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $249 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1051 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 975 MHz | 918 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 2,995 gflops | 3,290 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 1,536 | 1792 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 93.6 GTexel / s | 102.8 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 190 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 5,200 million | 5,000 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Display Port | 1.2 | |
VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2x 6-pin |
Longeur | 221 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 5.0 | |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 8 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 160 GB / s | 176.0 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 5500 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |