NVIDIA Quadro P2200 versus NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 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 5 mois plus tard
- 2.1x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 160 Watt
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 909 versus 748
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 versus 7 January 2019 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 160 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 909 versus 748 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
- Environ 37% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1365 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 13% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1680 MHz versus 1493 MHz
- Environ 50% de pipelines plus haut: 1920 versus 1280
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 16 nm
- Environ 20% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 6 GB versus 5 GB
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 14150 versus 9318
- 2.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 71588 versus 32420
- Environ 80% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 217.59 versus 121.124
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3103.927 versus 1958.592
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 21.666 versus 8.452
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 134.68 versus 120.742
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1155.956 versus 510.941
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 20094 versus 11437
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7442 versus 3717
- 4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 6714 versus 1676
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 20094 versus 11437
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7442 versus 3717
- 4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 6714 versus 1676
- 2.2x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 7484 versus 3404
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1365 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1680 MHz versus 1493 MHz |
| Pipelines | 1920 versus 1280 |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 16 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 6 GB versus 5 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 14150 versus 9318 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 71588 versus 32420 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 217.59 versus 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3103.927 versus 1958.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 21.666 versus 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 134.68 versus 120.742 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1155.956 versus 510.941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 20094 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 7442 versus 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 6714 versus 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 20094 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 7442 versus 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 6714 versus 1676 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 7484 versus 3404 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
| 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 RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9318 | 14150 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 909 | 748 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32420 | 71588 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | 217.59 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | 3103.927 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | 21.666 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | 134.68 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | 1155.956 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 | 20094 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 7442 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1676 | 6714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 | 20094 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 7442 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1676 | 6714 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 | 7484 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Nom de code | GP106 | TU106 |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 | 7 January 2019 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 317 | 157 |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $349 | |
| Prix maintenant | $349.99 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 62.74 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz | 1680 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz | 1365 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 | 1920 |
| Pixel fill rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 119.4 GTexel/s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 160 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4400 million | 10,800 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| Compte DisplayPort | 2 | |
| 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 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 5 GB | 6 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 200.2 GB/s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 160 bit | 192 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5X | GDDR6 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 14000 MHz | |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro P2200 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro CX
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
NVIDIAQuadro P2200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce MX570A
