NVIDIA Quadro P1000 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 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 ans 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 21% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1266 MHz versus 1050 MHz
- Environ 26% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1480 MHz versus 1178 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 3.1x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 47 Watt versus 148 Watt
- 716x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5012 MHz versus 7.0 GB/s
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 65.117 versus 35.714
- 4.3x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1591 versus 369
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 versus 19 September 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz versus 1050 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz versus 1178 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt versus 148 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz versus 7.0 GB/s |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.117 versus 35.714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 versus 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 versus 3340 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 versus 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 versus 3340 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1591 versus 369 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
- Environ 84% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 109 billion / sec versus 59.2 GTexel / s
- 3.3x plus de pipelines: 1664 versus 512
- 2.1x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,920 gflops versus 1,894 gflops
- 2.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 9640 versus 4500
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 766 versus 590
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 28498 versus 15667
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 105.107 versus 71.86
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1225.96 versus 832.248
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 8.737 versus 4.039
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 490.688 versus 245.081
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11499 versus 6796
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11499 versus 6796
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 109 billion / sec versus 59.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1664 versus 512 |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,920 gflops versus 1,894 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9640 versus 4500 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 766 versus 590 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 28498 versus 15667 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 105.107 versus 71.86 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1225.96 versus 832.248 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.737 versus 4.039 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 490.688 versus 245.081 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11499 versus 6796 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11499 versus 6796 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P1000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | NVIDIA Quadro P1000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4500 | 9640 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 590 | 766 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15667 | 28498 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 71.86 | 105.107 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 832.248 | 1225.96 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.039 | 8.737 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.117 | 35.714 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 245.081 | 490.688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6796 | 11499 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 | 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 | 3340 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6796 | 11499 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 | 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 | 3340 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1591 | 369 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P1000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Nom de code | GP107 | GM204 |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 | 19 September 2014 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $375 | $329 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 517 | 371 |
| Prix maintenant | $319.99 | $407.76 |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 15.53 | 28.59 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz | 1178 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,894 gflops | 3,920 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 1664 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.2 GTexel / s | 109 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt | 148 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,300 million | 5,200 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 1664 | |
| Température maximale du GPU | 98 °C | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |
| Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
| Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
| HDCP | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
| Soutien de plusiers moniteurs | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 145 mm | 10.5" (26.7 cm) |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2x 6-pins |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Hauteur | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
| Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 500 Watt | |
| Options SLI | 4x | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.19 GB / s | 224 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 7.0 GB/s |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| Adaptive Vertical Sync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| SLI | ||
| Surround | ||
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
