NVIDIA Titan X Pascal versus AMD FirePro W4300
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Titan X Pascal and AMD FirePro W4300 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 8 mois plus tard
- Environ 52% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1417 MHz versus 930 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 342.9 GTexel / s versus 44.64 GTexel / s
- 4.7x plus de pipelines: 3584 versus 768
- 7.7x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 10,974 gflops versus 1,428 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 16 nm versus 28 nm
- 3x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 12 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 67% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 10008 MHz versus 6000 MHz
- 6.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 63437 versus 10312
- 5.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 165.792 versus 31.528
- 2.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2368.267 versus 828.57
- 6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 17.829 versus 2.985
- 6.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 992.132 versus 152.484
- 3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10841 versus 3572
- 3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10841 versus 3572
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 2 August 2016 versus 1 December 2015 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1417 MHz versus 930 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 342.9 GTexel / s versus 44.64 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 3584 versus 768 |
| Performance á point flottant | 10,974 gflops versus 1,428 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm versus 28 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 12 GB versus 4 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 10008 MHz versus 6000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 63437 versus 10312 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 165.792 versus 31.528 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2368.267 versus 828.57 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 17.829 versus 2.985 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 992.132 versus 152.484 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10841 versus 3572 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10841 versus 3572 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro W4300
- 5x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 250 Watt
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 59.153 versus 21.354
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 6161 versus 3696
- 5.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 17597 versus 3333
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 6161 versus 3696
- 5.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 17597 versus 3333
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 250 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 59.153 versus 21.354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 6161 versus 3696 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 17597 versus 3333 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 6161 versus 3696 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 17597 versus 3333 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Titan X Pascal
GPU 2: AMD FirePro W4300
| 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 Titan X Pascal | AMD FirePro W4300 |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 63437 | 10312 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 165.792 | 31.528 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2368.267 | 828.57 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 17.829 | 2.985 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.354 | 59.153 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 992.132 | 152.484 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10841 | 3572 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3696 | 6161 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3333 | 17597 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10841 | 3572 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3696 | 6161 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3333 | 17597 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 9557 | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2818 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 659 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Titan X Pascal | AMD FirePro W4300 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 2.0 |
| Nom de code | GP102 | Bonaire |
| Date de sortie | 2 August 2016 | 1 December 2015 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $1,199 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 346 | 416 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1531 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1417 MHz | 930 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 10,974 gflops | 1,428 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 3584 | 768 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 342.9 GTexel / s | 44.64 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 11,800 million | 2,080 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 267 mm | 171 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 12 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 480.4 GB / s | 96 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 10008 MHz | 6000 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
ATIAll-In-Wonder X1900
NVIDIATitan X Pascal vs
ATIRadeon HD 3850 X2
NVIDIATitan X Pascal vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9800S
NVIDIATitan X Pascal vs
AMDRadeon HD 6650A
NVIDIATitan X Pascal vs
AMDRadeon R9 290
NVIDIATitan X Pascal vs
AMDRadeon Pro 580X
