NVIDIA Quadro P2000 versus NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 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 2 ans 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 40% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1076 MHz versus 771 MHz
- Environ 89% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1480 MHz versus 784 MHz
- Environ 8% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 94.72 GTexel / s versus 87.81 GTexel / s
- Environ 44% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,031 gflops versus 2,107 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 16 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 44% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 108 Watt
- Environ 25% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 5 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 30% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7008 MHz versus 5400 MHz
- Environ 60% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6957 versus 4340
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 630 versus 498
- Environ 86% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 22896 versus 12321
- 3.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 versus 33.016
- Environ 92% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1414.794 versus 736.063
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.736 versus 2.73
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 81.206 versus 31.588
- 6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 417.823 versus 70.194
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10251 versus 6373
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3681 versus 3382
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10251 versus 6373
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3681 versus 3382
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 6 February 2017 versus 22 July 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1076 MHz versus 771 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz versus 784 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 94.72 GTexel / s versus 87.81 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,031 gflops versus 2,107 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 108 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 5 GB versus 4 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz versus 5400 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6957 versus 4340 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 630 versus 498 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22896 versus 12321 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 versus 33.016 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 versus 736.063 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 versus 2.73 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 versus 31.588 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 versus 70.194 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 versus 6373 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3681 versus 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3316 versus 3311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 versus 6373 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3681 versus 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3316 versus 3311 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K4200
- Environ 75% de pipelines plus haut: 1344 versus 768
| Pipelines | 1344 versus 768 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4200
| 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 K4200 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6957 | 4340 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 630 | 498 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22896 | 12321 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 | 33.016 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 | 736.063 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 | 2.73 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 | 31.588 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 | 70.194 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 | 6373 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3681 | 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3316 | 3311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 | 6373 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3681 | 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3316 | 3311 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2958 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GP106 | GK104 |
| Date de sortie | 6 February 2017 | 22 July 2014 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $585 | $854.99 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 387 | 681 |
| Prix maintenant | $429.99 | $446.99 |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 19.44 | 11.92 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz | 784 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1076 MHz | 771 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,031 gflops | 2,107 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 1344 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 94.72 GTexel / s | 87.81 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4,400 million | 3,540 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 | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 140.2 GB / s | 172.8 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz | 5400 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
