RTX A500 Mobile vs Quadro K2000D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K2000D with RTX A500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A500 Mobile outperforms K2000D by a whopping 308% 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 | 769 | 384 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.19 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.86 | 40.61 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | GA107S |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 March 2013 (13 years ago) | 22 March 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 384 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 832 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1537 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 51 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.53 | 98.37 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7327 TFLOPS | 6.296 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 2 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 202 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 96 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 8.6 |
| 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.
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 10−12
−320%
| 42
+320%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−340%
| 22
+340%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 4 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 59.90 | no data |
| 1440p | 119.80 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how K2000D and RTX A500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A500 Mobile is 320% faster in 1080p
- RTX A500 Mobile is 340% faster in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.86 | 15.74 |
| Recency | 1 March 2013 | 22 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 51 Watt | 30 Watt |
RTX A500 Mobile has a 308% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 70% lower power consumption.
The RTX A500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000D in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K2000D is a workstation graphics card while RTX A500 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.
