Quadro T2000 Mobile vs NVS 510

Place in performance ranking	882	249
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.14	4.86
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	GK107	N19P-Q3
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 October 2012 (11 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$449	no data
Current price	$61 (0.1x MSRP)	$2221

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

T2000 Mobile has 3371% better value for money than NVS 510.

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	192	1024
Core clock speed	797 MHz	1575 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.75	114.2
Floating-point performance	306.0 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on NVS 510 and Quadro T2000 Mobile 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	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	160 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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1782 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.51 GB/s	128.0 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

4x mini-DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
CUDA	3.0	7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

NVS 510 1.81

T2000 Mobile 20.68
+1043%

Quadro T2000 Mobile outperforms NVS 510 by 1043% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

NVS 510 699

T2000 Mobile 7985
+1042%

Quadro T2000 Mobile outperforms NVS 510 by 1042% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35

−961%

350−400
+961%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 −1025%	450−500 +1025%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 −900%	350−400 +900%
Battlefield 5	65−70 −1003%	750−800 +1003%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −971%	450−500 +971%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −961%	350−400 +961%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −942%	500−550 +942%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 −991%	600−650 +991%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −1029%	1050−1100 +1029%
Hitman 3	40−45 −998%	450−500 +998%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −998%	900−950 +998%
Metro Exodus	65−70 −987%	750−800 +987%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 −971%	600−650 +971%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −1003%	750−800 +1003%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −1029%	700−750 +1029%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 −1025%	450−500 +1025%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 −900%	350−400 +900%
Battlefield 5	65−70 −1003%	750−800 +1003%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −971%	450−500 +971%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −961%	350−400 +961%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −942%	500−550 +942%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 −991%	600−650 +991%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −1029%	1050−1100 +1029%
Hitman 3	40−45 −998%	450−500 +998%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −998%	900−950 +998%
Metro Exodus	65−70 −987%	750−800 +987%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 −971%	600−650 +971%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −1003%	750−800 +1003%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −1011%	500−550 +1011%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −1029%	700−750 +1029%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 −1025%	450−500 +1025%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 −900%	350−400 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −971%	450−500 +971%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −961%	350−400 +961%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −942%	500−550 +942%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −1029%	1050−1100 +1029%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −998%	900−950 +998%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −1003%	750−800 +1003%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −1011%	500−550 +1011%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −1029%	700−750 +1029%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

55−60

−971%

600−650
+971%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −1025%	450−500 +1025%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 −971%	450−500 +971%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −995%	230−240 +995%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 −1005%	210−220 +1005%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 −1011%	300−310 +1011%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −983%	130−140 +983%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −900%	350−400 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −998%	450−500 +998%
Hitman 3	24−27 −1025%	270−280 +1025%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 −971%	450−500 +971%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −926%	400−450 +926%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −947%	450−500 +947%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −1025%	270−280 +1025%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −971%	150−160 +971%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

−929%

350−400
+929%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 −1000%	220−230 +1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 −1025%	180−190 +1025%
Hitman 3	16−18 −1025%	180−190 +1025%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −1030%	260−270 +1030%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 −971%	150−160 +971%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −995%	230−240 +995%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −983%	130−140 +983%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 −991%	120−130 +991%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −991%	120−130 +991%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −991%	120−130 +991%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −971%	300−310 +971%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −1030%	260−270 +1030%
Metro Exodus	20−22 −1000%	220−230 +1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −1011%	100−105 +1011%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

−1011%

200−210
+1011%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.81	20.68
Recency	23 October 2012	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	60 Watt