NVIDIA Tesla P4 versus NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Tesla P4 and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M 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 Tesla P4
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 0 mois plus tard
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 170.1 GTexel / s versus 67.2 GTexel / s
- 2.5x plus de pipelines: 2560 versus 1,024
- 2.5x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 5,443 gflops versus 2,150 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 16 nm versus 28 nm
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 20% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 6008 MHz versus 5012 MHz
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 8768 versus 5526
- Environ 97% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 31552 versus 16049
- Environ 79% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 147.62 versus 82.563
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1791.761 versus 1266.506
- Environ 93% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 9.457 versus 4.91
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 99.574 versus 70.779
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 523.29 versus 252.607
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11409 versus 7779
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11409 versus 7779
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 September 2016 versus 18 August 2015 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 170.1 GTexel / s versus 67.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2560 versus 1,024 |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,443 gflops versus 2,150 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 28 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 4 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz versus 5012 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8768 versus 5526 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 31552 versus 16049 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 147.62 versus 82.563 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1791.761 versus 1266.506 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.457 versus 4.91 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 99.574 versus 70.779 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 523.29 versus 252.607 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11409 versus 7779 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11409 versus 7779 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
- Environ 30% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1050 MHz versus 810 MHz
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 402 versus 389
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3720 versus 3698
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3360 versus 3341
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3720 versus 3698
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3360 versus 3341
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1050 MHz versus 810 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 402 versus 389 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 versus 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 versus 3341 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 versus 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 versus 3341 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Tesla P4
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
| 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 P4 | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8768 | 5526 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 389 | 402 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 31552 | 16049 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 147.62 | 82.563 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1791.761 | 1266.506 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.457 | 4.91 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 99.574 | 70.779 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 523.29 | 252.607 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11409 | 7779 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3698 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3341 | 3360 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11409 | 7779 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3341 | 3360 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Tesla P4 | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Nom de code | GP104 | GM204 |
| Date de sortie | 13 September 2016 | 18 August 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 355 | 495 |
| Genre | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1063 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 810 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,443 gflops | 2,150 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2560 | 1,024 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 170.1 GTexel / s | 67.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 7,200 million | 5,200 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 192.3 GB / s | 160 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Tesla P4 avec des autres
NVIDIATesla P4 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7730
NVIDIATesla P4 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980
NVIDIATesla P4 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 970
NVIDIATesla P4 vs
NVIDIATesla M6
NVIDIATesla P4 vs
AMDRadeon Pro 5300M
NVIDIATesla P4 vs
NVIDIAQuadro T1200 Mobile
