NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 versus AMD Radeon Pro Duo
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and AMD Radeon Pro Duo 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 RTX 8000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 20% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1200 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 40% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 250 Watt versus 350 Watt
- 28x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 14000 MHz versus 500 MHz
- 2.4x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 19370 versus 8164
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 869 versus 765
- 2.6x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 137748 versus 53806
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 401.574 versus 141.474
- Environ 78% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 6432.348 versus 3621.344
- 3.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 43.914 versus 13.132
- Environ 91% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 215.219 versus 112.973
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 2101.927 versus 799.933
- 2.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 21578 versus 10141
- 2.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 21578 versus 10141
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 August 2018 versus 26 April 2016 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1200 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt versus 350 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 14000 MHz versus 500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 19370 versus 8164 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 869 versus 765 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 137748 versus 53806 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 401.574 versus 141.474 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 6432.348 versus 3621.344 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 43.914 versus 13.132 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 215.219 versus 112.973 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2101.927 versus 799.933 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 21578 versus 10141 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 21578 versus 10141 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Pro Duo
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3713 versus 3652
- 11.6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 38251 versus 3290
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3713 versus 3652
- 11.6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 38251 versus 3290
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3713 versus 3652 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 38251 versus 3290 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3713 versus 3652 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 38251 versus 3290 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Pro Duo
| 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 8000 | AMD Radeon Pro Duo |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 19370 | 8164 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 869 | 765 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 137748 | 53806 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 401.574 | 141.474 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 6432.348 | 3621.344 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 43.914 | 13.132 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 215.219 | 112.973 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2101.927 | 799.933 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 21578 | 10141 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3652 | 3713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3290 | 38251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 21578 | 10141 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3652 | 3713 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3290 | 38251 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | AMD Radeon Pro Duo | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | TU102 | Capsaicin |
| Date de sortie | 13 August 2018 | 26 April 2016 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $9,999 | $1,499 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 103 | 188 |
| Genre | Workstation | Workstation |
| Conception | reference | |
| Prix maintenant | $849 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.05 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1200 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1005 MHz | |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 18,600 million | 8,900 million |
| Unités de Compute | 128 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 2x 8,192 gflops | |
| Pipelines | 2x 4096 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 2x 256.0 GTexel / s billion / sec | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Nombre d’écrans Eyefinity | 6 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 267 mm | 277 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 2x 8-pin | 3x 8-pin |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| Vitesse de mémoire | 14000 MHz | 500 MHz |
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 512 GB / s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 2x 4096 Bit | |
| Genre de mémoire | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | |
Technologies |
||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| Enduro | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| FRTC | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 2080 Mobile
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3060 Ti
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
NVIDIARTX A4000
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
IntelArc A580
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
NVIDIARTX A3000 Mobile 12GB
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
NVIDIAA30
