NVIDIA Quadro P1000 versus NVIDIA Quadro K4000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 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 3 ans 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 56% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1266 MHz versus 810 MHz
- Environ 14% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 59.2 GTexel / s versus 51.84 GTexel / s
- Environ 52% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,894 gflops versus 1,244 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 70% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 47 Watt versus 80 Watt
- Environ 33% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 4 GB versus 3 GB
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4500 versus 2721
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 590 versus 424
- 2.3x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 15667 versus 6674
- 3.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 71.86 versus 18.462
- Environ 95% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 832.248 versus 427.88
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.039 versus 1.899
- 2.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 65.117 versus 23.742
- 4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 245.081 versus 61.965
- Environ 79% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6796 versus 3798
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3702 versus 3651
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3348 versus 3321
- Environ 79% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6796 versus 3798
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3702 versus 3651
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3348 versus 3321
- Environ 95% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1591 versus 817
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 versus 1 March 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz versus 810 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.2 GTexel / s versus 51.84 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,894 gflops versus 1,244 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt versus 80 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 3 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4500 versus 2721 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 590 versus 424 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15667 versus 6674 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 71.86 versus 18.462 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 832.248 versus 427.88 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.039 versus 1.899 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.117 versus 23.742 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 245.081 versus 61.965 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6796 versus 3798 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 versus 3651 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 versus 3321 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6796 versus 3798 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 versus 3651 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 versus 3321 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1591 versus 817 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K4000
- Environ 50% de pipelines plus haut: 768 versus 512
- Environ 12% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5616 MHz versus 5012 MHz
| Pipelines | 768 versus 512 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5616 MHz versus 5012 MHz |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P1000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4000
| 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 K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4500 | 2721 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 590 | 424 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15667 | 6674 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 71.86 | 18.462 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 832.248 | 427.88 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.039 | 1.899 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.117 | 23.742 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 245.081 | 61.965 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6796 | 3798 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 | 3651 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 | 3321 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6796 | 3798 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 | 3651 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 | 3321 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1591 | 817 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P1000 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GP107 | GK106 |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 | 1 March 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $375 | $1,269 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 517 | 866 |
| Prix maintenant | $319.99 | $225.65 |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 15.53 | 14.81 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,894 gflops | 1,244 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 768 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.2 GTexel / s | 51.84 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,300 million | 2,540 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 | 241 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.19 GB / s | 134.8 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 5616 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
