NVIDIA Quadro P2000 versus NVIDIA Tesla K20m
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA Tesla K20m 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 4 ans 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 52% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1076 MHz versus 706 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 35% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7008 MHz versus 5200 MHz
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6936 versus 4432
- 3.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 644 versus 210
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 22505 versus 14510
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 versus 54.89
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.736 versus 5.303
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 417.823 versus 250.291
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10251 versus 8319
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10251 versus 8319
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 6 February 2017 versus 5 January 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1076 MHz versus 706 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 225 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz versus 5200 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6936 versus 4432 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 644 versus 210 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22505 versus 14510 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 versus 54.89 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 versus 1414.755 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 versus 5.303 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 versus 250.291 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 versus 8319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 versus 8319 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Tesla K20m
- Environ 55% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 146.8 GTexel / s versus 94.72 GTexel / s
- 3.3x plus de pipelines: 2496 versus 768
- Environ 16% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,524 gflops versus 3,031 gflops
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 83.807 versus 81.206
- Environ 99% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7337 versus 3681
- 3.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 10873 versus 3316
- Environ 99% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7337 versus 3681
- 3.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 10873 versus 3316
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 146.8 GTexel / s versus 94.72 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2496 versus 768 |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,524 gflops versus 3,031 gflops |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 83.807 versus 81.206 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 7337 versus 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 10873 versus 3316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 7337 versus 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 10873 versus 3316 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Tesla K20m
| 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 Tesla K20m |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6936 | 4432 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 644 | 210 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22505 | 14510 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 | 54.89 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 | 1414.755 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 | 5.303 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 | 83.807 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 | 250.291 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 | 8319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3681 | 7337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3316 | 10873 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 | 8319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3681 | 7337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3316 | 10873 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2958 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | NVIDIA Tesla K20m | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
| Nom de code | GP106 | GK110 |
| Date de sortie | 6 February 2017 | 5 January 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $585 | $3,199 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 394 | 408 |
| Prix maintenant | $429.99 | |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 19.44 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1076 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,031 gflops | 3,524 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 2496 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 94.72 GTexel / s | 146.8 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 | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 201 mm | 267 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 5 GB | 5 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 140.2 GB / s | 208.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz | 5200 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
