Quadro 2000 vs GeForce GTX 285M SLI

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 285M SLI with Quadro 2000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 285M SLI
2009
2 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
4.14
+69%

GTX 285M SLI outperforms 2000 by an impressive 69% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking687835
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.12
Power efficiency1.922.75
ArchitectureG9x (2007−2010)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameN10E-GTXGF106
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date2 March 2009 (15 years ago)24 December 2010 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores256192
Core clock speed576 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors1508 Million1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt62 Watt
Texture fill rateno data20.00
Floating-point processing powerno data0.48 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data32

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data178 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1020 MHz650 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data41.6 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno data1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1012 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA+2.1

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 HD60
+71.4%
35−40
−71.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data17.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+75%
16−18
−75%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+79.2%
24−27
−79.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+75%
16−18
−75%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+79.2%
24−27
−79.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+75%
16−18
−75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+79.2%
24−27
−79.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Hitman 3 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+85.7%
14−16
−85.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

This is how GTX 285M SLI and Quadro 2000 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 285M SLI is 71% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.14 2.45
Recency 2 March 2009 24 December 2010
Chip lithography 55 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 62 Watt

GTX 285M SLI has a 69% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro 2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 141.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 285M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 285M SLI is a notebook card while Quadro 2000 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M SLI
GeForce GTX 285M SLI
NVIDIA Quadro 2000
Quadro 2000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 285M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 311 votes

Rate Quadro 2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.