RTX A2000 vs Quadro 1000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 1000M with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 outperforms 1000M by a whopping 2320% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 981 | 137 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | 85.84 |
| Power efficiency | 2.26 | 35.19 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 10 August 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $174.95 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX A2000 has 77936% better value for money than Quadro 1000M.
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 cores | 96 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2688 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 48 |
| TMUs | 16 | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 26 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 167 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| 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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 288.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 8.6 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. 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.
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 | 43
−123%
| 96
+123%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−4500%
| 46
+4500%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−2800%
| 29
+2800%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.07 | 4.68 |
| 1440p | 174.95 | 9.76 |
| 4K | 174.95 | 15.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−2233%
|
140−150
+2233%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−2233%
|
140−150
+2233%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−2233%
|
350−400
+2233%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−2275%
|
190−200
+2275%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−2173%
|
750−800
+2173%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−2233%
|
140−150
+2233%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−2233%
|
140−150
+2233%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−2233%
|
350−400
+2233%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−2275%
|
190−200
+2275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−2264%
|
260−270
+2264%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−2173%
|
750−800
+2173%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−2233%
|
140−150
+2233%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−2233%
|
140−150
+2233%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−2233%
|
350−400
+2233%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−2275%
|
190−200
+2275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−2264%
|
260−270
+2264%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−2173%
|
750−800
+2173%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−2186%
|
160−170
+2186%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
−2186%
|
160−170
+2186%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
This is how Quadro 1000M and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 is 123% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 is 4500% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 is 2800% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.47 | 35.57 |
| Recency | 13 January 2011 | 10 August 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 70 Watt |
Quadro 1000M has 55.6% lower power consumption.
RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 2319.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 1000M is a mobile workstation card while RTX A2000 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.
