Quadro FX 560 vs Quadro P2000 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 Max-Q with Quadro FX 560, including specs and performance data.
P2000 Max-Q outperforms FX 560 by a whopping 4659% 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 | 439 | 1431 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.70 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP107GL | G73 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 July 2017 (9 years ago) | 20 April 2006 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $299 |
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 | 768 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1215 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 177 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 4.200 |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 12 |
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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 198 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 19.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | no data | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | no data | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 | 50
+4900%
| 1−2
−4900%
|
| 4K | 20 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 299.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+7100%
|
1−2
−7100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 27−30 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+7100%
|
1−2
−7100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 75−80
+7400%
|
1−2
−7400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 110−120
+5400%
|
2−3
−5400%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+7100%
|
1−2
−7100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+5933%
|
3−4
−5933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+8500%
|
1−2
−8500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 75−80
+7400%
|
1−2
−7400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 32 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 110−120
+5400%
|
2−3
−5400%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+8500%
|
1−2
−8500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 110−120
+5400%
|
2−3
−5400%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+7400%
|
1−2
−7400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+4750%
|
2−3
−4750%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+9000%
|
1−2
−9000%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+6050%
|
2−3
−6050%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 60−65
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14 | 0−1 |
This is how P2000 Max-Q and FX 560 compete in popular games:
- P2000 Max-Q is 4900% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.85 | 0.27 |
| Recency | 5 July 2017 | 20 April 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 90 nm |
P2000 Max-Q has a 4659% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P2000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 560 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation graphics card while Quadro FX 560 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
