NVIDIA Quadro P2200 versus NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 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 6 mois plus tard
- 2.1x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 160 Watt
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3404 versus 1873
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 versus 13 November 2018 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 160 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 versus 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 versus 3714 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 versus 1873 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
- Environ 1% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1005 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 3% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1545 MHz versus 1493 MHz
- Environ 86% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 222.5 GTexel/s versus 119.4 GTexel/s
- Environ 80% de pipelines plus haut: 2304 versus 1280
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 16 nm
- Environ 60% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 8 GB versus 5 GB
- 2.6x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 85209 versus 32343
- Environ 92% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 232.933 versus 121.124
- Environ 90% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3728.135 versus 1958.592
- 2.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 24.872 versus 8.452
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 136.223 versus 120.742
- Environ 98% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1011.233 versus 510.941
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 20206 versus 11437
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 versus 1676
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 20206 versus 11437
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 versus 1676
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1005 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1545 MHz versus 1493 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 222.5 GTexel/s versus 119.4 GTexel/s |
| Pipelines | 2304 versus 1280 |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 16 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 5 GB |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 85209 versus 32343 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 232.933 versus 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3728.135 versus 1958.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 24.872 versus 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 136.223 versus 120.742 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1011.233 versus 510.941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 20206 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 20206 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 1676 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
| 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 Quadro RTX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9372 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 892 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32343 | 85209 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 121.124 | 232.933 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 | 3728.135 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.452 | 24.872 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 | 136.223 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 510.941 | 1011.233 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11437 | 20206 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1676 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11437 | 20206 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1676 | 3359 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3404 | 1873 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Nom de code | GP106 | TU104 |
| Date de sortie | 10 June 2019 | 13 November 2018 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 307 | 211 |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Génération GCN | Quadro RTX | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $899 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz | 1545 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz | 1005 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 119.4 GFLOPS | 222.5 GFLOPS |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 59.72 GFLOPS | 14.24 TFLOPS |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.822 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 2304 |
| Pixel fill rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | 98.88 GPixel/s |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 119.4 GTexel/s | 222.5 GTexel/s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 160 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4400 million | 13600 million |
| Render output units | 64 | |
| Texture Units | 144 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x DisplayPort | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 201 mm (7.9") | 9.5 inches (241 mm) |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 8-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 5 GB | 8 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 200.2 GB/s | 416.0 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 160 bit | 256 bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5X | GDDR6 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1625 MHz (13000 MHz effective) | |
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
