NVIDIA Quadro P2200 versus AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. 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 P2200
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 15% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1493 MHz versus 1300 MHz
- 166.7x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 12500 million
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 918 versus 784
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 versus 19 March 2019 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz versus 1300 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 12500 million |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 918 versus 784 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48
- Environ 20% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1200 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 249.6 GTexel/s versus 119.4 GTexel/s
- 2.4x plus de pipelines: 3072 versus 1280
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 16 nm
- Environ 60% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 8 GB versus 5 GB
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 11300 versus 9322
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 53429 versus 31487
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 135.416 versus 121.124
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3063.269 versus 1958.592
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 12.678 versus 8.452
- Environ 73% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 883.876 versus 510.941
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11925 versus 11437
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3947 versus 3717
- 6.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 10411 versus 1676
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11925 versus 11437
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3947 versus 3717
- 6.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 10411 versus 1676
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1200 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 249.6 GTexel/s versus 119.4 GTexel/s |
| Pipelines | 3072 versus 1280 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 16 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 5 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11300 versus 9322 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 53429 versus 31487 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 135.416 versus 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3063.269 versus 1958.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 12.678 versus 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 883.876 versus 510.941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11925 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3947 versus 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 10411 versus 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11925 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3947 versus 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 10411 versus 1676 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48
| 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 - 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 P2200 | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9322 | 11300 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 918 | 784 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 31487 | 53429 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | 135.416 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | 3063.269 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | 12.678 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | 883.876 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 | 11925 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 3947 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1676 | 10411 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 | 11925 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 3947 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1676 | 10411 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Vega 10 PRO |
| Nom de code | GP106 | Greenland |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 | 19 March 2019 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 304 | 228 |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Génération GCN | GCN 5.0 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 119.4 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 59.72 GFLOPS | 15.97 TFLOPS |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.822 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 3072 |
| Pixel fill rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | 83.20 GPixel/s |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 119.4 GTexel/s | 249.6 GTexel/s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 12500 million |
| Compte de transistor | 4400 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 201 mm (7.9") | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 5 GB | 8 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 200.2 GB/s | 402.4 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 160 bit | 2048 bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5X | HBM2 |
| Mémoire de la bande passante haute (HBM) | ||
| Vitesse de mémoire | 786 MHz (1572 MHz effective) | |
Technologies |
||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro P2200 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
ATIFireMV 2260
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM Rebrand
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M390X
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
AMDRadeon R7 M465X
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce MX570
