NVIDIA Quadro P1000 versus NVIDIA Quadro K2200
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire. 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 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 21% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1266 MHz versus 1046 MHz
- Environ 32% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1480 MHz versus 1124 MHz
- Environ 32% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 59.2 GTexel / s versus 44.96 GTexel / s
- Environ 32% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,894 gflops versus 1,439 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 45% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 47 Watt versus 68 Watt
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4500 versus 3572
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 590 versus 548
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 15667 versus 12020
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 71.86 versus 40.695
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 832.248 versus 588.094
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.039 versus 3.205
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 65.117 versus 30.455
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 245.081 versus 166.26
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6796 versus 4921
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3702 versus 1577
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3348 versus 1671
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6796 versus 4921
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3702 versus 1577
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3348 versus 1671
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1591 versus 1193
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 versus 22 July 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz versus 1046 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz versus 1124 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.2 GTexel / s versus 44.96 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,894 gflops versus 1,439 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt versus 68 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4500 versus 3572 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 590 versus 548 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15667 versus 12020 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 71.86 versus 40.695 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 832.248 versus 588.094 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.039 versus 3.205 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.117 versus 30.455 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 245.081 versus 166.26 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6796 versus 4921 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 versus 1577 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 versus 1671 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6796 versus 4921 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 versus 1577 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 versus 1671 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1591 versus 1193 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K2200
- Environ 25% de pipelines plus haut: 640 versus 512
| Pipelines | 640 versus 512 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P1000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200
| 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 Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4500 | 3572 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 590 | 548 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15667 | 12020 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 71.86 | 40.695 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 832.248 | 588.094 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.039 | 3.205 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.117 | 30.455 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 245.081 | 166.26 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6796 | 4921 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 | 1577 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 | 1671 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6796 | 4921 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 | 1577 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 | 1671 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1591 | 1193 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P1000 | NVIDIA Quadro K2200 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | GP107 | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 | 22 July 2014 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $375 | $395.75 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 517 | 787 |
| Prix maintenant | $319.99 | $343.99 |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 15.53 | 13.01 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,894 gflops | 1,439 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 640 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.2 GTexel / s | 44.96 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt | 68 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,300 million | 1,870 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 145 mm | 202 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.19 GB / s | 80.19 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
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
