NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 versus NVIDIA Quadro K2200
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 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: 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, PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 4 ans 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 37% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1545 MHz versus 1124 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 222.5 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel / s
- 3.6x plus de pipelines: 2304 versus 640
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 28 nm
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 4 GB
- 7.1x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 85209 versus 12020
- 5.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 232.933 versus 40.695
- 6.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3728.135 versus 588.094
- 7.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 24.872 versus 3.205
- 4.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 136.223 versus 30.455
- 6.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1011.233 versus 166.26
- 4.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 20206 versus 4921
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 versus 1577
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 versus 1671
- 4.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 20206 versus 4921
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 versus 1577
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 versus 1671
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1873 versus 1193
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 November 2018 versus 22 July 2014 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1545 MHz versus 1124 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 222.5 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2304 versus 640 |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 28 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 4 GB |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 85209 versus 12020 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 232.933 versus 40.695 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3728.135 versus 588.094 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 24.872 versus 3.205 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 136.223 versus 30.455 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1011.233 versus 166.26 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 20206 versus 4921 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 versus 1577 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 1671 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 20206 versus 4921 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 versus 1577 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 1671 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1873 versus 1193 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K2200
- Environ 4% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1046 MHz versus 1005 MHz
- 2.4x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 68 Watt versus 160 Watt
- 3.1x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5012 MHz versus 1625 MHz (13000 MHz effective)
| Vitesse du noyau | 1046 MHz versus 1005 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 68 Watt versus 160 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz versus 1625 MHz (13000 MHz effective) |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200
| 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 RTX 4000 | NVIDIA Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 85209 | 12020 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 232.933 | 40.695 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3728.135 | 588.094 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 24.872 | 3.205 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 136.223 | 30.455 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1011.233 | 166.26 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 20206 | 4921 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | 1577 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 | 1671 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 20206 | 4921 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | 1577 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 | 1671 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1873 | 1193 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3572 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 548 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 | NVIDIA Quadro K2200 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | TU104 | GM107 |
| Génération GCN | Quadro RTX | |
| Date de sortie | 13 November 2018 | 22 July 2014 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $899 | $395.75 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 211 | 787 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
| Prix maintenant | $343.99 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 13.01 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1545 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1005 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 222.5 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 14.24 TFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 7.119 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 2304 | 640 |
| Pixel fill rate | 98.88 GPixel/s | |
| Render output units | 64 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 222.5 GTexel/s | 44.96 GTexel / s |
| Texture Units | 144 | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 160 Watt | 68 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 13600 million | 1,870 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,439 gflops | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 9.5 inches (241 mm) | 202 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 8-pin | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 416.0 GB/s | 80.19 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1625 MHz (13000 MHz effective) | 5012 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 4000 vs
NVIDIATITAN Xp Collector's Edition Jedi Order
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 4000 vs
NVIDIATITAN Xp Collector's Edition Galactic Empire
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 4000 vs
AMDRadeon RX 5600 XT
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 4000 vs
AMDRadeon Pro 5300
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 4000 vs
AppleA14 Bionic
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 4000 vs
IntelArc Pro A30M
