NVIDIA Quadro P2200 versus NVIDIA Quadro 2000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 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 8 ans 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 60% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1000 MHz versus 625 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 119.4 GTexel/s versus 20 GTexel / s
- 6.7x plus de pipelines: 1280 versus 192
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 16 nm versus 40 nm
- 5x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 5 GB versus 1 GB
- 9.9x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 9372 versus 947
- 2.9x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 892 versus 303
- 8.3x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 32343 versus 3879
- 11.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 121.124 versus 10.229
- 7.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1958.592 versus 258.26
- 9.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 8.452 versus 0.885
- 8.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.742 versus 13.688
- 26.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 510.941 versus 19.02
- 7.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11437 versus 1600
- 2.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3717 versus 1682
- 7.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11437 versus 1600
- 2.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3717 versus 1682
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 versus 24 December 2010 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz versus 625 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 119.4 GTexel/s versus 20 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1280 versus 192 |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 40 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 5 GB versus 1 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9372 versus 947 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 versus 303 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 versus 3879 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 versus 10.229 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 versus 258.26 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 versus 0.885 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 versus 13.688 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 versus 19.02 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 versus 1600 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 versus 1682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 versus 1600 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 versus 1682 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro 2000
- Environ 21% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 62 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2668 versus 1676
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2668 versus 1676
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 62 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2668 versus 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2668 versus 1676 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 2000
| 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 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9372 | 947 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 | 303 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 | 3879 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | 10.229 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | 258.26 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | 0.885 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | 13.688 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | 19.02 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 | 1600 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 1682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1676 | 2668 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 | 1600 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 1682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1676 | 2668 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Fermi |
| Nom de code | GP106 | GF106 |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 | 24 December 2010 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 307 | 1287 |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $599 | |
| Prix maintenant | $87.99 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.65 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 40 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 | 192 |
| Pixel fill rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 119.4 GTexel/s | 20 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 62 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4400 million | 1,170 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 480.0 gflops | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 201 mm (7.9") | 178 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 5 GB | 1 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 200.2 GB/s | 41.6 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 160 bit | 128 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2600 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
