NVIDIA Quadro P2000 versus NVIDIA Quadro K6000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA Quadro K6000 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 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 35% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1076 MHz versus 797 MHz
- Environ 64% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1480 MHz versus 902 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 16 nm versus 28 nm
- 3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 225 Watt
- Environ 17% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7008 MHz versus 6008 MHz
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 644 versus 543
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 versus 67.178
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 417.823 versus 355.166
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 6 February 2017 versus 23 July 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1076 MHz versus 797 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz versus 902 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 225 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz versus 6008 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 644 versus 543 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 versus 67.178 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 versus 355.166 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K6000
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 216.5 GTexel / s versus 94.72 GTexel / s
- 3.8x plus de pipelines: 2880 versus 768
- Environ 71% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 5,196 gflops versus 3,031 gflops
- 2.4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 12 GB versus 5 GB
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 8059 versus 6934
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 22920 versus 22528
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1816.61 versus 1414.794
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.435 versus 6.736
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 88.889 versus 81.206
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12657 versus 10251
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3711 versus 3681
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 versus 3316
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12657 versus 10251
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3711 versus 3681
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 versus 3316
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 216.5 GTexel / s versus 94.72 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2880 versus 768 |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,196 gflops versus 3,031 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 12 GB versus 5 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8059 versus 6934 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22920 versus 22528 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1816.61 versus 1414.794 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.435 versus 6.736 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 88.889 versus 81.206 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12657 versus 10251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3711 versus 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 versus 3316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12657 versus 10251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3711 versus 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 versus 3316 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K6000
| 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 K6000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6934 | 8059 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 644 | 543 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22528 | 22920 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 | 67.178 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 | 1816.61 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 | 7.435 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 | 88.889 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 | 355.166 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 | 12657 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3681 | 3711 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3316 | 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 | 12657 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3681 | 3711 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3316 | 3356 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2958 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GP106 | GK110B |
| Date de sortie | 6 February 2017 | 23 July 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $585 | $5,265 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 394 | 361 |
| Prix maintenant | $429.99 | $833.98 |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 19.44 | 11.34 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1076 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,031 gflops | 5,196 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 2880 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 94.72 GTexel / s | 216.5 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4,400 million | 7,080 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 201 mm | 267 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 5 GB | 12 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 140.2 GB / s | 288.4 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz | 6008 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro P2000 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 550v
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 780 Ti
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX TITAN Z
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
AMDRadeon RX 570
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
AMDRadeon Pro 575X
NVIDIAQuadro P2000 vs
NVIDIAQuadro T1000
