NVIDIA Quadro P1000 versus NVIDIA Tesla P4
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and NVIDIA Tesla P4 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 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 56% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1266 MHz versus 810 MHz
- Environ 39% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1480 MHz versus 1063 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 51% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 590 versus 391
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 versus 13 September 2016 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz versus 810 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz versus 1063 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 16 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 590 versus 391 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 versus 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 versus 3341 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 versus 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 versus 3341 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Tesla P4
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 170.1 GTexel / s versus 59.2 GTexel / s
- 5x plus de pipelines: 2560 versus 512
- 2.9x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 5,443 gflops versus 1,894 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 20% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 6008 MHz versus 5012 MHz
- 2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 9097 versus 4500
- 2.4x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 37924 versus 15667
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 147.62 versus 71.86
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1791.761 versus 832.248
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 9.457 versus 4.039
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 99.574 versus 65.117
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 523.29 versus 245.081
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11409 versus 6796
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11409 versus 6796
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 170.1 GTexel / s versus 59.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2560 versus 512 |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,443 gflops versus 1,894 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 4 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz versus 5012 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9097 versus 4500 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 37924 versus 15667 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 147.62 versus 71.86 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1791.761 versus 832.248 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.457 versus 4.039 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 99.574 versus 65.117 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 523.29 versus 245.081 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11409 versus 6796 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11409 versus 6796 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P1000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Tesla P4
| 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 | NVIDIA Tesla P4 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4500 | 9097 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 590 | 391 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15667 | 37924 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 71.86 | 147.62 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 832.248 | 1791.761 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.039 | 9.457 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.117 | 99.574 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 245.081 | 523.29 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6796 | 11409 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 | 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3348 | 3341 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6796 | 11409 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 | 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3348 | 3341 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1591 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P1000 | NVIDIA Tesla P4 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Pascal |
| Nom de code | GP107 | GP104 |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 | 13 September 2016 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $375 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 517 | 349 |
| Prix maintenant | $319.99 | |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 15.53 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz | 1063 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1266 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,894 gflops | 5,443 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 2560 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.2 GTexel / s | 170.1 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 47 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,300 million | 7,200 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 145 mm | 267 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.19 GB / s | 192.3 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz | 6008 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
