NVIDIA Quadro P1000 versus AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 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 P1000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 7% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1266 MHz versus 1188 MHz
- Environ 19% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1480 MHz versus 1243 MHz
- 2.8x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 47 Watt versus 130 Watt
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3702 versus 3575
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3702 versus 3575
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 versus 10 November 2016 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz versus 1188 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz versus 1243 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt versus 130 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 versus 3575 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 versus 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 versus 3575 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 versus 3347 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 179.0 GTexel / s versus 59.2 GTexel / s
- 4.5x plus de pipelines: 2304 versus 512
- 3x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 5,728 gflops versus 1,894 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 40% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7000 MHz versus 5012 MHz
- Environ 74% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 7811 versus 4500
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 797 versus 590
- 2.5x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 39388 versus 15667
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 115.834 versus 71.86
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1987.633 versus 832.248
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 10.152 versus 4.039
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 105.263 versus 65.117
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 597.677 versus 245.081
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10320 versus 6796
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10320 versus 6796
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 179.0 GTexel / s versus 59.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2304 versus 512 |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,728 gflops versus 1,894 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 4 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7000 MHz versus 5012 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7811 versus 4500 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 797 versus 590 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 39388 versus 15667 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 115.834 versus 71.86 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1987.633 versus 832.248 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.152 versus 4.039 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 105.263 versus 65.117 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 597.677 versus 245.081 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10320 versus 6796 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10320 versus 6796 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P1000
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100
| 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 P1000 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4500 | 7811 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 590 | 797 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15667 | 39388 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 71.86 | 115.834 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 832.248 | 1987.633 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.039 | 10.152 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.117 | 105.263 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 245.081 | 597.677 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6796 | 10320 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 | 3575 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 | 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6796 | 10320 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 | 3575 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 | 3347 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1591 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P1000 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 4.0 |
| Nom de code | GP107 | Ellesmere |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 | 10 November 2016 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $375 | $799 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 517 | 316 |
| Prix maintenant | $319.99 | $539.99 |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 15.53 | 19.25 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz | 1243 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz | 1188 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,894 gflops | 5,728 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 2304 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.2 GTexel / s | 179.0 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,300 million | 5,700 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 145 mm | 241 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.19 GB / s | 224.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 7000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| DisplayPort 1.3 HBR / 1.4 HDR Ready | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HDMI 2.0 | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro P1000 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro P1000 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 370M
NVIDIAQuadro P1000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7850
NVIDIAQuadro P1000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 770
NVIDIAQuadro P1000 vs
NVIDIATesla K40c
NVIDIAQuadro P1000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 850A
NVIDIAQuadro P1000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960
