NVIDIA Quadro P2000 versus NVIDIA Quadro K4000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P2000 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 P2000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 33% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1076 MHz versus 810 MHz
- Environ 83% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 94.72 GTexel / s versus 51.84 GTexel / s
- 2.4x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,031 gflops versus 1,244 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 16 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 7% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 80 Watt
- Environ 67% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 5 GB versus 3 GB
- Environ 25% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7008 MHz versus 5616 MHz
- 2.6x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6957 versus 2721
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 630 versus 424
- 3.4x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 22896 versus 6674
- 6.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 versus 18.462
- 3.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1414.794 versus 427.88
- 3.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.736 versus 1.899
- 3.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 81.206 versus 23.742
- 6.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 417.823 versus 61.965
- 2.7x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10251 versus 3798
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3681 versus 3651
- 2.7x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10251 versus 3798
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3681 versus 3651
- 3.6x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2958 versus 817
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 6 February 2017 versus 1 March 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1076 MHz versus 810 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 94.72 GTexel / s versus 51.84 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,031 gflops versus 1,244 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 80 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 5 GB versus 3 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz versus 5616 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6957 versus 2721 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 630 versus 424 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22896 versus 6674 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 versus 18.462 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 versus 427.88 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 versus 1.899 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 versus 23.742 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 versus 61.965 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 versus 3798 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3681 versus 3651 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 versus 3798 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3681 versus 3651 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2958 versus 817 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K4000
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3321 versus 3316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3321 versus 3316 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
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 P2000 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6957 | 2721 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 630 | 424 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22896 | 6674 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 | 18.462 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 | 427.88 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 | 1.899 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 | 23.742 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 | 61.965 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 | 3798 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3681 | 3651 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3316 | 3321 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 | 3798 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3681 | 3651 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3316 | 3321 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2958 | 817 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GP106 | GK106 |
| Date de sortie | 6 February 2017 | 1 March 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $585 | $1,269 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 387 | 866 |
| Prix maintenant | $429.99 | $225.65 |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 19.44 | 14.81 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1076 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,031 gflops | 1,244 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 768 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 94.72 GTexel / s | 51.84 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4,400 million | 2,540 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 | 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 | 5 GB | 3 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 140.2 GB / s | 134.8 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz | 5616 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
