NVIDIA Quadro P2200 versus AMD Radeon R9 M390X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and AMD Radeon R9 M390X 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 4 ans 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 38% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1000 MHz versus 723 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 119.4 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 16 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 25% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 5 GB versus 4 GB
- 2.6x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 9319 versus 3597
- 2.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 906 versus 435
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 32446 versus 22044
- Environ 89% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 121.124 versus 64.199
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1958.592 versus 1284.053
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 8.452 versus 5.881
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.742 versus 78.169
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 510.941 versus 312.822
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11437 versus 6508
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11437 versus 6508
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 versus 5 May 2015 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz versus 723 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 119.4 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 28 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 5 GB versus 4 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9319 versus 3597 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 906 versus 435 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32446 versus 22044 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 versus 64.199 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 versus 1284.053 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 versus 5.881 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 versus 78.169 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 versus 312.822 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 versus 6508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 versus 6508 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 M390X
- Environ 60% de pipelines plus haut: 2048 versus 1280
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8593 versus 3717
- 14.7x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 24690 versus 1676
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8593 versus 3717
- 14.7x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 24690 versus 1676
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 2048 versus 1280 |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8593 versus 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 24690 versus 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8593 versus 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 24690 versus 1676 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M390X
| 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 P2200 | AMD Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9319 | 3597 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 906 | 435 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32446 | 22044 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | 64.199 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | 1284.053 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | 5.881 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | 78.169 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | 312.822 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 | 6508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 8593 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1676 | 24690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 | 6508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 8593 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1676 | 24690 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | AMD Radeon R9 M390X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | GP106 | Amethyst |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 | 5 May 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 318 | 316 |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 119.4 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 59.72 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.822 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 2048 |
| Pixel fill rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 119.4 GTexel/s | 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4400 million | 5,000 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,961 gflops | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 201 mm (7.9") | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | Not Listed |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
| Mantle | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 5 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 200.2 GB/s | 160.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 160 bit | 256 bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Graphiques changeables | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro P2200 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro CX
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
ATIFirePro 2450 Multi-View
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M390X
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
AMDRadeon R9 380X
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
AMDRadeon RX 460 1024SP
