NVIDIA Quadro P2000 versus NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 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 P2000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 13% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1076 MHz versus 954 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 94.72 GTexel / s versus 30.53 GTexel / s
- 2x plus de pipelines: 768 versus 384
- 4.1x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,031 gflops versus 732.7 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 16 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.5x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 5 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 75% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7008 MHz versus 4000 MHz
- 4.4x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6957 versus 1578
- Environ 64% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 630 versus 385
- 5.6x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 22896 versus 4071
- 7.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 versus 14.332
- 5.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1414.794 versus 265.424
- 6.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.736 versus 1.093
- 5.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 81.206 versus 15.009
- 10.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 417.823 versus 38.219
- 4.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10251 versus 2446
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3681 versus 1631
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3316 versus 1974
- 4.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10251 versus 2446
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3681 versus 1631
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3316 versus 1974
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 6 February 2017 versus 1 March 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1076 MHz versus 954 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 94.72 GTexel / s versus 30.53 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 768 versus 384 |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,031 gflops versus 732.7 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 28 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 5 GB versus 2 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz versus 4000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6957 versus 1578 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 630 versus 385 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22896 versus 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 versus 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 versus 265.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 versus 1.093 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 versus 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 versus 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 versus 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3681 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3316 versus 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 versus 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3681 versus 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3316 versus 1974 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K2000
- Environ 47% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 51 Watt versus 75 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
| 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 P2000 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6957 | 1578 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 630 | 385 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22896 | 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 | 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 | 265.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 | 1.093 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 | 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 | 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3681 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3316 | 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3681 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3316 | 1974 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2958 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GP106 | GK107 |
| Date de sortie | 6 February 2017 | 1 March 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $585 | $599 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 387 | 1206 |
| Prix maintenant | $429.99 | $164.99 |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 19.44 | 11.74 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1076 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,031 gflops | 732.7 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 94.72 GTexel / s | 30.53 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 51 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4,400 million | 1,270 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 201 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 | 5 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 140.2 GB / s | 64 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz | 4000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro P2000 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
ATIFireGL V7700
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
AMDRadeon R7 M465X
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
AMDRadeon RX 470 (Desktop)
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1060 3 GB
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
AMDRadeon RX 5300M
