GeForce RTX 3080 vs Quadro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2000 with GeForce RTX 3080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3080 outperforms M2000 by a whopping 517% 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 | 510 | 45 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 75 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.59 | 34.65 |
| Power efficiency | 10.05 | 14.53 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | GA102 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (10 years ago) | 1 September 2020 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 3080 has 2079% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
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 | 768 | 8704 |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz | 1440 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz | 1710 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 320 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.82 | 465.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.786 TFLOPS | 29.77 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 96 |
| TMUs | 48 | 272 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 272 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 68 |
| L1 Cache | 288 KB | 8.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 5 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 201 mm | 285 mm |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 12-pin |
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 | 128 Bit | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 10 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 1188 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 106 GB/s | 760.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
| 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 | 4x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 8.5 |
| 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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 24−27
−85.5%
| 165 |
| 1440p | 18−20
−85.4%
| 123 |
| 4K | 12−14 | 85
+608%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 18.24 | 4.24
+76.8%
|
| 1440p | 24.32 | 5.68
+76.6%
|
| 4K | 36.48 | 8.22
+77.5%
|
- RTX 3080 has 77% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 3080 has 77% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 3080 has 77% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 290−300 | 290−300 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 253 | 253 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 172 | 172 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 290−300 | 290−300 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 138 | 138 |
| Far Cry 5 | 157 | 157 |
| Fortnite | 280−290 | 280−290 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230−240 | 230−240 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 135 | 135 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 156 | 156 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 290−300 | 290−300 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 134 | 134 |
| Dota 2 | 147 | 147 |
| Far Cry 5 | 150 | 150 |
| Fortnite | 280−290 | 280−290 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230−240 | 230−240 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 147 | 147 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 123 | 123 |
| Metro Exodus | 128 | 128 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 303 | 303 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 145 | 145 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 131 | 131 |
| Dota 2 | 135 | 135 |
| Far Cry 5 | 140 | 140 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230−240 | 230−240 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 101 | 101 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 149 | 149 |
| Valorant | 268 | 268 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 280−290 | 280−290 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 450−500 | 450−500 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 112 | 112 |
| Metro Exodus | 95 | 95 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 400−450 | 400−450 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 124 | 124 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86 | 86 |
| Far Cry 5 | 135 | 135 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200 | 190−200 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 84 | 84 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150 | 140−150 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160 | 150−160 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85 | 80−85 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 143 | 143 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Metro Exodus | 65 | 65 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 115 | 115 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 91 | 91 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85 | 80−85 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 43 | 43 |
| Dota 2 | 129 | 129 |
| Far Cry 5 | 94 | 94 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 49 | 49 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100 | 95−100 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 75−80 |
This is how Quadro M2000 and RTX 3080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3080 is 588% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3080 is 583% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3080 is 608% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.66 | 59.56 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 1 September 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 10 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 320 Watt |
Quadro M2000 has 77% lower power consumption.
RTX 3080, on the other hand, has a 517% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 150% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3080 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.
