Quadro M2000 vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms Quadro M2000 by a whopping 142% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 199 | 407 |
| Place by popularity | 59 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 4.31 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2022) | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | GM206 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (3 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $437.75 |
| Current price | no data | $285 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 55.82 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 1,812 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Quadro M2000 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 201 mm |
| Width | no data | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| 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 | GDDR6 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 6612 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | Up to 106 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 Connectors | no data | DP DP DP DP |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
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 compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | + |
| CUDA | no data | 5.2 |
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 | 60
+150%
| 24−27
−150%
|
| 1440p | 39
+144%
| 16−18
−144%
|
| 4K | 25
+150%
| 10−12
−150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 150−160
+127%
|
66
−127%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 110−120
+129%
|
45−50
−129%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 140−150
+141%
|
58
−141%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+132%
|
80−85
−132%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 120−130
+135%
|
50−55
−135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 120−130
+131%
|
52
−131%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+128%
|
55−60
−128%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 150−160
+131%
|
65−70
−131%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 260−270
+141%
|
100−110
−141%
|
| Hitman 3 | 130−140
+128%
|
57
−128%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 280−290
+137%
|
118
−137%
|
| Metro Exodus | 300−310
+138%
|
126
−138%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 210−220
+141%
|
87
−141%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 280−290
+137%
|
118
−137%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 150−160
+127%
|
66
−127%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 110−120
+129%
|
45−50
−129%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 75−80
+134%
|
32
−134%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+132%
|
80−85
−132%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 120−130
+135%
|
50−55
−135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+132%
|
41
−132%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+128%
|
55−60
−128%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 150−160
+131%
|
65−70
−131%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 260−270
+141%
|
100−110
−141%
|
| Hitman 3 | 120−130
+131%
|
52
−131%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 230−240
+132%
|
95−100
−132%
|
| Metro Exodus | 200−210
+141%
|
83
−141%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 190−200
+138%
|
80
−138%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 220−230
+132%
|
95
−132%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 190−200
+135%
|
81
−135%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 400−450
+122%
|
180
−122%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 110−120
+129%
|
45−50
−129%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 55−60
+129%
|
24
−129%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 120−130
+135%
|
50−55
−135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+135%
|
34
−135%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+128%
|
55−60
−128%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 260−270
+141%
|
100−110
−141%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 170−180
+130%
|
74
−130%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 190−200
+132%
|
82
−132%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+139%
|
46
−139%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+131%
|
26
−131%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 170−180
+136%
|
72
−136%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+134%
|
45−50
−134%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 160−170
+135%
|
68
−135%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 60−65
+131%
|
24−27
−131%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 50−55
+127%
|
22
−127%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 60−65
+140%
|
25
−140%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+122%
|
18
−122%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+124%
|
49
−124%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+140%
|
50−55
−140%
|
| Hitman 3 | 85−90
+130%
|
37
−130%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 140−150
+137%
|
59
−137%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+131%
|
52
−131%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 130−140
+132%
|
56
−132%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+142%
|
30−35
−142%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+137%
|
19
−137%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 120−130
+126%
|
53
−126%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+140%
|
24−27
−140%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45−50
+137%
|
18−20
−137%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
+133%
|
15
−133%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+141%
|
27−30
−141%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55−60
+139%
|
23
−139%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+141%
|
29
−141%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+133%
|
14−16
−133%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+133%
|
6
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+135%
|
30−35
−135%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+141%
|
27−30
−141%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+129%
|
24−27
−129%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
+118%
|
10−12
−118%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+140%
|
25
−140%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Quadro M2000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 150% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 144% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 150% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.98 | 10.32 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 8 April 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 75 Watt |
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro M2000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
