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: 7020 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 | 7020 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 25% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 597 versus 478
- 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 478 |
| 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 | 7020 | 6680 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 478 | 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) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro M5000M avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro M5000M vs
ATIRadeon X700 SE
NVIDIAQuadro M5000M vs
ATIFireGL V7200
NVIDIAQuadro M5000M vs
AMDRadeon R9 285
NVIDIAQuadro M5000M vs
AMDRadeon R9 M470X
NVIDIAQuadro M5000M vs
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 Max-Q
NVIDIAQuadro M5000M vs
IntelUHD Graphics P750
