NVIDIA Quadro P2200 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 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 P2200
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 60% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 120 Watt
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 918 versus 782
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1958.592 versus 1892.505
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.742 versus 118.54
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 versus 14 March 2019 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 120 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 918 versus 782 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 versus 1892.505 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 versus 118.54 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
- Environ 53% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1530 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 20% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1785 MHz versus 1493 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 16 nm
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 11691 versus 9322
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 57152 versus 31487
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 190.366 versus 121.124
- Environ 60% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 13.492 versus 8.452
- Environ 74% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 887.857 versus 510.941
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 14998 versus 11437
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 versus 1676
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 14998 versus 11437
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 versus 1676
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 5414 versus 3404
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1530 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1785 MHz versus 1493 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 16 nm |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11691 versus 9322 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 57152 versus 31487 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 190.366 versus 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 13.492 versus 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 887.857 versus 510.941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 14998 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 14998 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 1676 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 5414 versus 3404 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9322 | 11691 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 918 | 782 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 31487 | 57152 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | 190.366 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | 1892.505 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | 13.492 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | 118.54 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | 887.857 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 | 14998 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1676 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 | 14998 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1676 | 3359 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 | 5414 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Nom de code | GP106 | TU116 |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 | 14 March 2019 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 304 | 241 |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $219 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 12 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 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 119.4 GTexel/s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4400 million | 6,600 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Compte DisplayPort | 1 | |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| HDMI | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 201 mm (7.9") | 229 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 8-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 5 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 200.2 GB/s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 160 bit | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5X | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 8004 MHz | |
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
