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 15% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 892 versus 776
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1958.592 versus 1902.867
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.742 versus 116.183
- 3.2x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3404 versus 1065
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 versus 14 March 2019 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 120 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 versus 776 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 versus 1902.867 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 versus 116.183 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 versus 1065 |
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 24% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 11659 versus 9372
- Environ 79% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 58014 versus 32343
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 189.842 versus 121.124
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 13.408 versus 8.452
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 875.838 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
| 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 | 11659 versus 9372 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 58014 versus 32343 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 189.842 versus 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 13.408 versus 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 875.838 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 |
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 | 9372 | 11659 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 | 776 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 | 58014 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | 189.842 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | 1902.867 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | 13.408 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | 116.183 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | 875.838 |
| 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 | 1065 |
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 | 307 | 258 |
| 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
AMDRadeon R9 M390X
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980 Ti
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980 (Laptop)
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
AMDRadeon R9 380X
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAP102-100
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
AMDRadeon RX 5500 XT
