Quadro 2000M vs Radeon PRO WX 3100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 3100 with Quadro 2000M, including specs and performance data.
PRO 3100 outperforms 2000M by a whopping 246% 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 | 635 | 980 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.50 | 0.28 |
| Power efficiency | 7.49 | 2.56 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | GF106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 June 2017 (9 years ago) | 13 January 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $46.56 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
PRO WX 3100 has 436% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.
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 | 512 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.248 TFLOPS | 0.4224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 256 KB |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 145 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 28.8 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 | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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.
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 | 14
−171%
| 38
+171%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 14.21
−1060%
| 1.23
+1060%
|
- Quadro 2000M has 1060% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+89.2%
|
35−40
−89.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+174%
|
35−40
−174%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+143%
|
21−24
−143%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+89.2%
|
35−40
−89.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+143%
|
21−24
−143%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+89.2%
|
35−40
−89.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+277%
|
12−14
−277%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+442%
|
12−14
−442%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Palworld | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Palworld | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how PRO WX 3100 and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 2000M is 171% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Resident Evil 4 Remake, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the PRO WX 3100 is 1000% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 2000M is 14% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- PRO WX 3100 performs better in 51 tests (98%)
- Quadro 2000M performs better in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.29 | 1.82 |
| Recency | 12 June 2017 | 13 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 55 Watt |
PRO WX 3100 has a 246% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 186% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 2000M, on the other hand, has 18% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO WX 3100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 3100 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro 2000M 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.
