Tegra X1 vs Quadro P2000
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 355 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.92 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 18.00 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | GM20B |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (9 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | 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 | 1024 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 1076 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 2,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 20 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 94.72 | 16.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.031 TFLOPS | 0.512 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1280 KB | no data |
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 | IGP |
| Length | 201 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | IGP |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 160 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 140.2 GB/s | no data |
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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 20 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
Quadro P2000 has a 25% more advanced lithography process.
Tegra X1, on the other hand, has 400% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Quadro P2000 and Tegra X1. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics card while Tegra X1 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.
