NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile versus AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile
- Environ 68% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1815 MHz versus 1082 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 145.2 GTexel/s versus 34.62 GTexel/s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 8 nm versus 14 nm
- 4.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 9765 versus 2398
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 493 versus 411
- 4x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 56688 versus 14219
- 7.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 202.984 versus 25.896
- 4.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2138.158 versus 486.804
- 6.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 16.498 versus 2.503
- 2.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 151.433 versus 53.111
- 7.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 729.947 versus 100.658
- 5.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12750 versus 2524
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3708 versus 3274
- 5.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12750 versus 2524
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3708 versus 3274
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1815 MHz versus 1082 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 145.2 GTexel/s versus 34.62 GTexel/s |
| Processus de fabrication | 8 nm versus 14 nm |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9765 versus 2398 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 493 versus 411 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 56688 versus 14219 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 202.984 versus 25.896 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2138.158 versus 486.804 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 16.498 versus 2.503 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 151.433 versus 53.111 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 729.947 versus 100.658 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12750 versus 2524 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3708 versus 3274 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 versus 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12750 versus 2524 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3708 versus 3274 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 versus 3352 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
- Environ 26% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 925 MHz versus 735 MHz
- Environ 46% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 65 Watt versus 95 Watt
- 2.7x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective)
| Vitesse du noyau | 925 MHz versus 735 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt versus 95 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
| 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 RTX A2000 Mobile | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9765 | 2398 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 493 | 411 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 56688 | 14219 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 202.984 | 25.896 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2138.158 | 486.804 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 16.498 | 2.503 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 151.433 | 53.111 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 729.947 | 100.658 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12750 | 2524 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3708 | 3274 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12750 | 2524 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3708 | 3274 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 3352 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Ampere | Polaris |
| Nom de code | GA106 | Lexa |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 272 | 841 |
| Date de sortie | 27 May 2019 | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | |
| Genre | Workstation | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1815 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 735 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 8 nm | 14 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 145.2 GFLOPS (1:64) | 86.56 GFLOPS |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 9.293 TFLOPS (1:1) | 1,385 GFLOPS |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 9.293 TFLOPS | 1,385 GFLOPS |
| Pipelines | 2560 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 87.12 GPixel/s | 17.31 GPixel/s |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 145.2 GTexel/s | 34.62 GTexel/s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 13250 million | 2200 million |
| Unités de Compute | 10 | |
| Stream Processors | 640 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Hauteur | Half Height | |
| Longeur | 6.6" (168 mm) | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.2 | 12.0 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.4 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 192 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 128 bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 4000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile avec des autres
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
ATIRadeon HD 4850 X2
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
AMDRadeon HD 8770 OEM
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
AMDRadeon R9 390X
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
NVIDIAQuadro P3200 Max-Q
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
NVIDIATesla T4
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
NVIDIAT400 4GB
