RTX A3000 Mobile vs Quadro 2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 2000 with RTX A3000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

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

RTX A3000 Mobile outperforms 2000 by a whopping 1234% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking916214
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.06no data
Power efficiency2.8233.35
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGF106GA104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date24 December 2010 (15 years ago)12 April 2021 (5 years 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 cores1924096
Core clock speed625 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1230 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million17,400 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)62 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate20.00157.4
Floating-point processing power0.48 TFLOPS10.08 TFLOPS
ROPs1664
TMUs32128
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L1 Cache256 KB4 MB
L2 Cache256 KB4 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
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed650 MHz1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth41.6 GB/s264.0 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/A1.3
CUDA2.18.6
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 A3000 Mobile 30.15
+1234%

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 A3000 Mobile 12559
+1232%
Samples: 1292

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 HD7−8
−1343%
101
+1343%
1440p3−4
−1567%
50
+1567%
4K3−4
−1400%
45
+1400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p85.57no data
1440p199.67no data
4K199.67no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 77
+0%
77
+0%
Palworld 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 66
+0%
66
+0%
Far Cry 5 111
+0%
111
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Palworld 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 53
+0%
53
+0%
Dota 2 142
+0%
142
+0%
Far Cry 5 103
+0%
103
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 124
+0%
124
+0%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Palworld 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 151
+0%
151
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 43
+0%
43
+0%
Dota 2 132
+0%
132
+0%
Far Cry 5 93
+0%
93
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61
+0%
61
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Palworld 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 62
+0%
62
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
+0%
27
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Palworld 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+0%
49
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45
+0%
45
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 77
+0%
77
+0%
Far Cry 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Palworld 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

This is how Quadro 2000 and RTX A3000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX A3000 Mobile is 1343% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A3000 Mobile is 1567% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A3000 Mobile is 1400% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.26 30.15
Recency 24 December 2010 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 62 Watt 70 Watt

Quadro 2000 has 13% lower power consumption.

RTX A3000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 1234% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A3000 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 RTX A3000 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.


3.5 355 votes

Rate Quadro 2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 204 votes

Rate RTX A3000 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 RTX A3000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.