NVIDIA Quadro P3000 versus AMD Radeon R9 280X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P3000 and AMD Radeon R9 280X pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, 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, 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro P3000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 22% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1215 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 16 nm versus 28 nm
- 3.3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 250 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 6 GB versus 3 GB
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6482 versus 6166
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3720 versus 3700
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3720 versus 3700
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3489 versus 2351
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 11 January 2017 versus 8 October 2013 |
Vitesse augmenté | 1215 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 250 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 6 GB versus 3 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6482 versus 6166 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 versus 3700 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 versus 3357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 versus 3700 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 versus 3357 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3489 versus 2351 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 280X
- Environ 60% de pipelines plus haut: 2048 versus 1280
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 678 versus 422
Caractéristiques | |
Pipelines | 2048 versus 1280 |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 678 versus 422 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9603 versus 9579 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9603 versus 9579 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P3000
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 280X
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
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 P3000 | AMD Radeon R9 280X |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6482 | 6166 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 422 | 678 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 25840 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9579 | 9603 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 | 3700 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 | 3357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9579 | 9603 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 | 3700 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 | 3357 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3489 | 2351 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 89.187 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1434.496 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.656 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 87.459 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 493.57 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA Quadro P3000 | AMD Radeon R9 280X | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | N17E-Q1 | Tahiti |
Date de sortie | 11 January 2017 | 8 October 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 394 | 391 |
Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $299 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1215 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 1088 MHz | |
Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 1280 | 2048 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 250 Watt |
Performance á point flottant | 4,096 gflops | |
Stream Processors | 2048 | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 128.0 GTexel / s | |
Compte de transistor | 4,313 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Display Port | 1.4 | |
Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | |
Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
Eyefinity | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 5.1 | |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 6 GB | 3 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 168 GB / s | 288 GB/s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 192 Bit | 384 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz | |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
3D Stereo | ||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus | ||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | |
Longeur | 275 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin |