NVIDIA Quadro P400 versus NVIDIA Quadro P2000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro P400 and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 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 P400
- Environ 14% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1228 MHz versus 1076 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 16 nm
- 2.5x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 30 Watt versus 75 Watt
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1228 MHz versus 1076 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 16 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3328 versus 3316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3328 versus 3316 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro P2000
- Environ 18% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1480 MHz versus 1252 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 94.72 GTexel / s versus 21.25 GTexel / s
- 3x plus de pipelines: 768 versus 256
- 4.5x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,031 gflops versus 679.9 gflops
- 2.5x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 5 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 75% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7008 MHz versus 4012 MHz
- 4.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6957 versus 1651
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 630 versus 435
- 7.5x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 22896 versus 3053
- 5.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 versus 19.856
- 4.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1414.794 versus 309.824
- 4.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.736 versus 1.38
- 3.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 81.206 versus 25.011
- 4.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 417.823 versus 84.489
- 3.8x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10251 versus 2709
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3681 versus 2875
- 3.8x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10251 versus 2709
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3681 versus 2875
- 4.8x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2958 versus 617
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1480 MHz versus 1252 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 94.72 GTexel / s versus 21.25 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 768 versus 256 |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,031 gflops versus 679.9 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 5 GB versus 2 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz versus 4012 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6957 versus 1651 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 630 versus 435 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22896 versus 3053 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 versus 19.856 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 versus 309.824 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 versus 1.38 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 versus 25.011 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 versus 84.489 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 versus 2709 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3681 versus 2875 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 versus 2709 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3681 versus 2875 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2958 versus 617 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P400
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
| 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 P400 | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1651 | 6957 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 435 | 630 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3053 | 22896 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 19.856 | 113.416 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 309.824 | 1414.794 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.38 | 6.736 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 25.011 | 81.206 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 84.489 | 417.823 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2709 | 10251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2875 | 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3328 | 3316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2709 | 10251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2875 | 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3328 | 3316 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 617 | 2958 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro P400 | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Pascal |
| Nom de code | GP107 | GP106 |
| Date de sortie | 7 February 2017 | 6 February 2017 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $119.99 | $585 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 983 | 387 |
| Prix maintenant | $119.99 | $429.99 |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 18.70 | 19.44 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1252 MHz | 1480 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1228 MHz | 1076 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 679.9 gflops | 3,031 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Pipelines | 256 | 768 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 21.25 GTexel / s | 94.72 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,300 million | 4,400 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 3x mini-DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 145 mm | 201 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 5 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 32.1 GB / s | 140.2 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4012 MHz | 7008 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro P400 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
ATIRadeon HD 2400 PRO
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 800A
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M360
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
AMDRadeon R8 M445DX
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
AMDRadeon 535 Mobile
NVIDIAQuadro P400 vs
NVIDIAGeForce MX230
