NVIDIA Tesla C2075 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 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 Tesla C2075
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 48% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 247 Watt versus 365 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 6 GB versus 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU)
- Environ 76% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 3000 MHz versus 1707 MHz
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 428 versus 394
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3705 versus 3683
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3705 versus 3683
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 25 July 2011 versus 24 March 2011 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 247 Watt versus 365 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 6 GB versus 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 3000 MHz versus 1707 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 428 versus 394 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3705 versus 3683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 versus 3330 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3705 versus 3683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 versus 3330 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590
- 2.1x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1215 MHz versus 575 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 77.7 billion / sec versus 32.2 GTexel / s
- 2.3x plus de pipelines: 1024 versus 448
- 2.4x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2x 1,244.2 gflops versus 1,030.4 gflops
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3341 versus 3017
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 12811 versus 10493
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 30.921 versus 26.973
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1116.126 versus 930.623
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.799 versus 3.142
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 49.114 versus 45.924
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 107.239 versus 93.747
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4118 versus 2825
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4118 versus 2825
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1215 MHz versus 575 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 77.7 billion / sec versus 32.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1024 versus 448 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2x 1,244.2 gflops versus 1,030.4 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3341 versus 3017 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12811 versus 10493 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 30.921 versus 26.973 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1116.126 versus 930.623 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.799 versus 3.142 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 49.114 versus 45.924 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 107.239 versus 93.747 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4118 versus 2825 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4118 versus 2825 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Tesla C2075
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590
| 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 Tesla C2075 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3017 | 3341 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 428 | 394 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10493 | 12811 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.973 | 30.921 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 930.623 | 1116.126 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.142 | 3.799 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.924 | 49.114 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 93.747 | 107.239 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2825 | 4118 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3705 | 3683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 | 3330 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2825 | 4118 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3705 | 3683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 | 3330 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Tesla C2075 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
| Nom de code | GF110 | GF110 |
| Date de sortie | 25 July 2011 | 24 March 2011 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 787 | 789 |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $699 | |
| Prix maintenant | $184 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 30.41 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 575 MHz | 1215 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,030.4 gflops | 2x 1,244.2 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 448 | 1024 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 32.2 GTexel / s | 77.7 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 247 Watt | 365 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | 3,000 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 1024 | |
| Température maximale du GPU | 97 °C | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI | 3x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort, Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort |
| Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
| HDMI | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
| Soutien de plusiers moniteurs | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 248 mm | 11" (280 mm) (27.9 cm) |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | Two 8-pin |
| Soutien de bus | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Hauteur | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
| Options SLI | Quad | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 6 GB | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 144.0 GB / s | 327.7 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 384 Bit | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 3000 MHz | 1707 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| SLI | ||
| Surround | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Tesla C2075 avec des autres
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6970M
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 590
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
NVIDIATesla M2070-Q
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 825M
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM
NVIDIATesla C2075 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M1200 Mobile
