NVIDIA Titan X Pascal versus AMD FirePro S9050
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Titan X Pascal and AMD FirePro S9050 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 Titan X Pascal
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 57% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1417 MHz versus 900 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 342.9 GTexel / s versus 100.8 GTexel / s
- 2x plus de pipelines: 3584 versus 1792
- 3.4x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 10,974 gflops versus 3,226 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 16 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 82% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 10008 MHz versus 5500 MHz
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 165.792 versus 68.324
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2368.267 versus 1463.376
- 2.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 17.829 versus 6.491
- 2.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 992.132 versus 344.551
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10841 versus 7062
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10841 versus 7062
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 2 August 2016 versus 7 August 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1417 MHz versus 900 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 342.9 GTexel / s versus 100.8 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 3584 versus 1792 |
| Performance á point flottant | 10,974 gflops versus 3,226 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 28 nm |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 10008 MHz versus 5500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 165.792 versus 68.324 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2368.267 versus 1463.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 17.829 versus 6.491 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 992.132 versus 344.551 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10841 versus 7062 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10841 versus 7062 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro S9050
- Environ 11% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 225 Watt versus 250 Watt
- 4.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 91.133 versus 21.354
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 6260 versus 3696
- 3.9x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 13032 versus 3333
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 6260 versus 3696
- 3.9x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 13032 versus 3333
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 225 Watt versus 250 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.133 versus 21.354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 6260 versus 3696 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 13032 versus 3333 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 6260 versus 3696 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 13032 versus 3333 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Titan X Pascal
GPU 2: AMD FirePro S9050
| 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 Titan X Pascal | AMD FirePro S9050 |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 66950 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 165.792 | 68.324 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2368.267 | 1463.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 17.829 | 6.491 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.354 | 91.133 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 992.132 | 344.551 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10841 | 7062 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3696 | 6260 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3333 | 13032 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10841 | 7062 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3696 | 6260 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3333 | 13032 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2244 | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4901 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 369 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Titan X Pascal | AMD FirePro S9050 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | GP102 | Tahiti |
| Date de sortie | 2 August 2016 | 7 August 2014 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $1,199 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 370 | 371 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1531 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1417 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 10,974 gflops | 3,226 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 3584 | 1792 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 342.9 GTexel / s | 100.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 11,800 million | 4,313 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 267 mm | 254 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Facteur de forme | Full Height / Full Length | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 12 GB | 12 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 480.4 GB / s | 264 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 384 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 10008 MHz | 5500 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Titan X Pascal avec des autres
NVIDIATitan X Pascal vs
ATIFireGL V8600
NVIDIATitan X Pascal vs
AMDRadeon HD 7730
NVIDIATitan X Pascal vs
NVIDIAQuadro K6000
NVIDIATitan X Pascal vs
AMDFirePro S9050
NVIDIATitan X Pascal vs
AMDRadeon Pro Vega 16
NVIDIATitan X Pascal vs
AMDRadeon Pro 5300M
