NVIDIA Quadro P1000 versus NVIDIA Quadro P2000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 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
- Environ 18% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1266 MHz versus 1076 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 16 nm
- Environ 60% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 47 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3702 versus 3681
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3348 versus 3316
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3702 versus 3681
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3348 versus 3316
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz versus 1076 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 16 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 versus 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 versus 3316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 versus 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 versus 3316 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro P2000
- Environ 60% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 94.72 GTexel / s versus 59.2 GTexel / s
- Environ 50% de pipelines plus haut: 768 versus 512
- Environ 60% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,031 gflops versus 1,894 gflops
- Environ 25% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 5 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 40% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7008 MHz versus 5012 MHz
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6957 versus 4500
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 630 versus 590
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 22896 versus 15667
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 versus 71.86
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1414.794 versus 832.248
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.736 versus 4.039
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 81.206 versus 65.117
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 417.823 versus 245.081
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10251 versus 6796
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10251 versus 6796
- Environ 86% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2958 versus 1591
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 94.72 GTexel / s versus 59.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 768 versus 512 |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,031 gflops versus 1,894 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 5 GB versus 4 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz versus 5012 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6957 versus 4500 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 630 versus 590 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22896 versus 15667 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 versus 71.86 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 versus 832.248 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 versus 4.039 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 versus 65.117 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 versus 245.081 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 versus 6796 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 versus 6796 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2958 versus 1591 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P1000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
| 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 P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4500 | 6957 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 590 | 630 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15667 | 22896 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 71.86 | 113.416 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 832.248 | 1414.794 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.039 | 6.736 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.117 | 81.206 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 245.081 | 417.823 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6796 | 10251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 | 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 | 3316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6796 | 10251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 | 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 | 3316 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1591 | 2958 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P1000 | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Pascal |
| Nom de code | GP107 | GP106 |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 | 6 February 2017 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $375 | $585 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 517 | 387 |
| Prix maintenant | $319.99 | $429.99 |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 15.53 | 19.44 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz | 1480 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz | 1076 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,894 gflops | 3,031 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 768 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.2 GTexel / s | 94.72 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,300 million | 4,400 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 | 201 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 5 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.19 GB / s | 140.2 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 7008 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
