GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile vs Quadro 2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 2000 with GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 2000
2010, $599
1 GB GDDR5, 62 Watt
2.26

RTX 5050 Mobile outperforms 2000 by a whopping 1391% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking916175
Place by popularitynot in top-10082
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.06no data
Power efficiency2.8252.14
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameGF106GB207
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date24 December 2010 (15 years ago)24 June 2025 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores1922560
Core clock speed625 MHz1020 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1500 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million16,900 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)62 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate20.00120.0
Floating-point processing power0.48 TFLOPS7.68 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3280
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20
L1 Cache256 KB2.5 MB
L2 Cache256 KB32 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 datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Length178 mmno data
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 typeGDDR5GDDR7
Maximum RAM amount1 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed650 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth41.6 GB/s384.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 DVI, 2x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.4
CUDA2.112.0
DLSS-+

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.

Quadro 2000 2.26
RTX 5050 Mobile 33.70
+1391%

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.

Quadro 2000 943
Samples: 2353
RTX 5050 Mobile 14039
+1389%
Samples: 2144

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 HD5−6
−1400%
75
+1400%
1440p2−3
−1950%
41
+1950%

Cost per frame, $

1080p119.80no data
1440p299.50no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Palworld 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Palworld 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 137
+0%
137
+0%
Metro Exodus 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Palworld 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Palworld 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 95
+0%
95
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Palworld 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Palworld 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

This is how Quadro 2000 and RTX 5050 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 5050 Mobile is 1400% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 5050 Mobile is 1950% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.26 33.70
Recency 24 December 2010 24 June 2025
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 62 Watt 50 Watt

RTX 5050 Mobile has a 1391% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 700% more advanced lithography process, and 24% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 2000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile is a notebook 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.


3.5 355 votes

Rate Quadro 2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 465 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 2000 or GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.