GeForce 7300 GT vs Quadro 2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 2000 with GeForce 7300 GT, including specs and performance data.
2000 outperforms 7300 GT by a whopping 679% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 916 | 1409 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.82 | 0.93 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | G73 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 24 December 2010 (15 years ago) | 15 May 2006 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $149.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro 2000 and 7300 GT have a nearly equal value for money.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 cores | 192 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 177 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 24 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.00 | 2.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 178 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 type | GDDR5 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 650 MHz | 325 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 10.4 GB/s |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.26 | 0.29 |
| Recency | 24 December 2010 | 15 May 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 24 Watt |
Quadro 2000 has a 679% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.
7300 GT, on the other hand, has 158% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7300 GT in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 2000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce 7300 GT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
