Arc A770M vs Quadro 2000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 2000M with Arc A770M, including specs and performance data.
Arc A770M outperforms 2000M by a whopping 1450% 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 | 948 | 225 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.28 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.51 | 17.81 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $46.56 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 192 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 524.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4224 TFLOPS | 16.79 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 128 |
| TMUs | 32 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 512 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
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 | large |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK 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 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 38
−129%
| 87
+129%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−1667%
| 53
+1667%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1750%
| 37
+1750%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.23 | no data |
| 1440p | 15.52 | no data |
| 4K | 23.28 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−7950%
|
160−170
+7950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2725%
|
113
+2725%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−933%
|
62
+933%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2600%
|
100−110
+2600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−7950%
|
160−170
+7950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95
+2275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−2020%
|
106
+2020%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1563%
|
130−140
+1563%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1020%
|
110−120
+1020%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−2900%
|
90−95
+2900%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−933%
|
62
+933%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−936%
|
110−120
+936%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−400%
|
180−190
+400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2600%
|
100−110
+2600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−7950%
|
160−170
+7950%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−616%
|
270−280
+616%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1825%
|
77
+1825%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−524%
|
130−140
+524%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1880%
|
99
+1880%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1563%
|
130−140
+1563%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1020%
|
110−120
+1020%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−2900%
|
90−95
+2900%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−883%
|
59
+883%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−2767%
|
86
+2767%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−3000%
|
93
+3000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−936%
|
110−120
+936%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−2063%
|
173
+2063%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−400%
|
180−190
+400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2600%
|
100−110
+2600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1575%
|
67
+1575%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−524%
|
130−140
+524%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95
+1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1020%
|
110−120
+1020%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−683%
|
47
+683%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−936%
|
110−120
+936%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−538%
|
51
+538%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−400%
|
180−190
+400%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1563%
|
130−140
+1563%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1875%
|
79
+1875%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1438%
|
200−210
+1438%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−872%
|
170−180
+872%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1750%
|
220−230
+1750%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4300%
|
44
+4300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3950%
|
81
+3950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1420%
|
75−80
+1420%
|
| God of War | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2267%
|
70−75
+2267%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−200%
|
45
+200%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−1800%
|
170−180
+1800%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−2150%
|
90−95
+2150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 45 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| God of War | 1−2
−2600%
|
27
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 2000M and Arc A770M compete in popular games:
- Arc A770M is 129% faster in 1080p
- Arc A770M is 1667% faster in 1440p
- Arc A770M is 1750% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A770M is 7950% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A770M performs better in 53 tests (85%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.81 | 28.06 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 120 Watt |
Quadro 2000M has 118.2% lower power consumption.
Arc A770M, on the other hand, has a 1450.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A770M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Arc A770M 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.
