NVIDIA RTX A6000 versus NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA RTX A6000 and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 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: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/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, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA RTX A6000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 45% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1455 MHz versus 1005 MHz
- Environ 55% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1860 MHz versus 1200 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 8 nm versus 12 nm
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 193937 versus 147346
- Environ 83% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 735.8 versus 401.574
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 58.523 versus 43.914
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 2342.233 versus 2101.927
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 23142 versus 21578
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3712 versus 3652
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 versus 3290
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 23142 versus 21578
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3712 versus 3652
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 versus 3290
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 5 Oct 2020 versus 13 August 2018 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1455 MHz versus 1005 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1860 MHz versus 1200 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 8 nm versus 12 nm |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 193937 versus 147346 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 735.8 versus 401.574 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 58.523 versus 43.914 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2342.233 versus 2101.927 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 23142 versus 21578 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3712 versus 3652 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 versus 3290 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 23142 versus 21578 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3712 versus 3652 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 versus 3290 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
- Environ 20% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 250 Watt versus 300 Watt
- 7x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 14000 MHz versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
- 4.5x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 19278 versus 4237
- 10x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 858 versus 86
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 215.219 versus 178.784
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt versus 300 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 14000 MHz versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 19278 versus 4237 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 858 versus 86 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 215.219 versus 178.784 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA RTX A6000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/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 A6000 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4237 | 19278 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 86 | 858 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 193937 | 147346 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 735.8 | 401.574 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 58.523 | 43.914 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 178.784 | 215.219 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2342.233 | 2101.927 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 23142 | 21578 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3712 | 3652 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3290 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 23142 | 21578 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3712 | 3652 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3290 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 17833 | 0 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 6432.348 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA RTX A6000 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Ampere | Turing |
| Nom de code | GA102 | TU102 |
| Date de sortie | 5 Oct 2020 | 13 August 2018 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $4649 | $9,999 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 98 | 104 |
| Genre | Workstation | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1860 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1455 MHz | 1005 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 8 nm | 12 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 1250 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 40.00 TFLOPS (1:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 40.00 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 10752 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 208.3 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 625.0 GTexel/s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 300 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 28300 million | 18,600 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x DisplayPort | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Facteur de forme | Dual-slot | |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 267 mm |
| Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 700 Watt | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 8-pin EPS | 2x 8-pin |
| Largeur | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.2 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 48 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 768 GB/s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 384 bit | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 14000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA RTX A6000 avec des autres
NVIDIARTX A6000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 2080
NVIDIARTX A6000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3060 Ti
NVIDIARTX A6000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3080 Mobile
NVIDIARTX A6000 vs
AMDRadeon RX 6700M
NVIDIARTX A6000 vs
NVIDIARTX A2000
NVIDIARTX A6000 vs
AMDRadeon RX 7600
