NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q versus AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q and AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 9 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 14 nm
- 3.8x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 60 Watt versus 230 Watt
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 220.867 versus 171.616
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 27 May 2019 versus 13 August 2018 |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 14 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 60 Watt versus 230 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 220.867 versus 171.616 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200
- 2x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1200 MHz versus 600 MHz
- Environ 26% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1530 MHz versus 1215 MHz
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 13932 versus 8366
- 2.4x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 815 versus 343
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 69812 versus 68305
- Environ 97% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 4031.404 versus 2046.214
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 16.925 versus 16.026
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 247.788 versus 94.532
- Environ 85% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1195.863 versus 645.647
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13044 versus 10140
- Environ 93% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7164 versus 3706
- 9.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 30936 versus 3351
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13044 versus 10140
- Environ 93% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7164 versus 3706
- 9.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 30936 versus 3351
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1200 MHz versus 600 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1530 MHz versus 1215 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 13932 versus 8366 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 815 versus 343 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 69812 versus 68305 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 4031.404 versus 2046.214 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 16.925 versus 16.026 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 247.788 versus 94.532 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1195.863 versus 645.647 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13044 versus 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 7164 versus 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 30936 versus 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13044 versus 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 7164 versus 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 30936 versus 3351 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200
| 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 RTX 3000 Max-Q | AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8366 | 13932 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 343 | 815 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 68305 | 69812 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 220.867 | 171.616 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2046.214 | 4031.404 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 16.026 | 16.925 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 94.532 | 247.788 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 645.647 | 1195.863 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10140 | 13044 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 | 7164 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3351 | 30936 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10140 | 13044 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 | 7164 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3351 | 30936 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q | AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 5.0 |
| Nom de code | TU106 | Vega 10 |
| Date de sortie | 27 May 2019 | 13 August 2018 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 325 | 118 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $999 | |
| Prix maintenant | $999 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 13.37 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1215 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 600 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 175.0 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 11.20 TFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 5.599 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 2304 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 77.76 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 175.0 GTexel/s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 60 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 10800 million | 12,500 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Largeur | IGP | |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 6 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 448 GB/s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 bit | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2000 MHz | |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon X1950 CrossFire Edition
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs
ATIFirePro 2450 Multi-View
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGRID K140Q
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega M GH
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAP102-100
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 3 GB
