NVIDIA Quadro P400 versus Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P400 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. 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 P400
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 5 mois plus tard
- 4.1x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1228 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 25% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1252 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- 3.6x plus de pipelines: 256 versus 72
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 442 versus 361
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 84.858 versus 67.077
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2875 versus 1668
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2875 versus 1668
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 versus 1 September 2015 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1228 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1252 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Pipelines | 256 versus 72 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 442 versus 361 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 84.858 versus 67.077 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2875 versus 1668 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2875 versus 1668 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580
- 2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 30 Watt
- 32x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 64 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1978 versus 1638
- 2.9x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 8759 versus 3053
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 49.11 versus 20.138
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 450.087 versus 318.72
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.059 versus 1.391
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 25.346 versus 24.886
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2846 versus 2709
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3355 versus 3328
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2846 versus 2709
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3355 versus 3328
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 30 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 64 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1978 versus 1638 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8759 versus 3053 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 49.11 versus 20.138 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 450.087 versus 318.72 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.059 versus 1.391 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 25.346 versus 24.886 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2846 versus 2709 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 versus 3328 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2846 versus 2709 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 versus 3328 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P400
GPU 2: Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580
| 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 P400 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1638 | 1978 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 442 | 361 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3053 | 8759 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 20.138 | 49.11 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 318.72 | 450.087 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.391 | 3.059 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 24.886 | 25.346 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 84.858 | 67.077 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2709 | 2846 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2875 | 1668 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3328 | 3355 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2709 | 2846 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2875 | 1668 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3328 | 3355 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 617 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P400 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Generation 9.0 |
| Nom de code | GP107 | Skylake GT4e |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 | 1 September 2015 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $119.99 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 992 | 993 |
| Prix maintenant | $119.99 | |
| Genre | Workstation | Laptop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 18.70 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1252 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1228 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 679.9 gflops | |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Pipelines | 256 | 72 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 21.25 GTexel / s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,300 million | 189 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 3x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
| Longeur | 145 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 64 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 32.1 GB / s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4012 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / DDR4 |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro P400 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
NVIDIAGeForce4 MX 460
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
AMDFirePro M5950
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 745 OEM
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
IntelIris Pro Graphics 580
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
AMDRadeon 535 Mobile
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
IntelArc A350M
