Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile vs GeForce2 MX

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1615262
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data23.48
ArchitectureCelsius (1999−2005)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameNV11 A2TU106
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date28 June 2000 (26 years ago)27 May 2019 (7 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA coresno data2304
Core clock speed175 MHz945 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1380 MHz
Number of transistors20 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology180 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data80 Watt
Texture fill rate0.7198.7
Floating-point processing powerno data6.359 TFLOPS
ROPs264
TMUs4144
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data36
L1 Cacheno data2.3 MB
L2 Cacheno data4 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfaceAGP 4xPCIe 3.0 x16
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeSDRGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount32 MB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed166 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth2.656 GB/s448.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x VGANo outputs
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Readyno data+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX7.012 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGL1.24.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce2 MX 2
Samples: 3
RTX 3000 Mobile 10116
+505700%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HDno data95
4Kno data88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Palworld 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Palworld 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 132
+0%
132
+0%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Palworld 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 109
+0%
109
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 121
+0%
121
+0%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 56
+0%
56
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Palworld 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Palworld 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Palworld 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 88
+0%
88
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 28 June 2000 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 32 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 180 nm 12 nm

RTX 3000 Mobile has an age advantage of 18 years, a 19100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce2 MX and Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce2 MX is a desktop graphics card while Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 29 votes

Rate GeForce2 MX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 456 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce2 MX or Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.