Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Quadro 5000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 5000M and Quadro T2000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
T2000 Mobile outperforms 5000M by a whopping 288% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 617 | 268 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.69 | 23.88 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 27 July 2010 (14 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
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 | 320 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 405 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.20 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5184 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 64 |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 128.0 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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D 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 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
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.
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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−185%
|
35−40
+185%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−273%
|
40−45
+273%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14
−408%
|
65−70
+408%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−313%
|
65−70
+313%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−185%
|
35−40
+185%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−273%
|
40−45
+273%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−300%
|
85−90
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−331%
|
55−60
+331%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−194%
|
45−50
+194%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−500%
|
80−85
+500%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−313%
|
65−70
+313%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−185%
|
35−40
+185%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−273%
|
40−45
+273%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−306%
|
70−75
+306%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14
−408%
|
65−70
+408%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−162%
|
65−70
+162%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
−252%
|
100−110
+252%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−300%
|
85−90
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−306%
|
70−75
+306%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−331%
|
55−60
+331%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−207%
|
130−140
+207%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−194%
|
45−50
+194%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−288%
|
65−70
+288%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−500%
|
80−85
+500%
|
| World of Tanks | 85−90
−171%
|
230−240
+171%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−313%
|
65−70
+313%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−185%
|
35−40
+185%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−273%
|
40−45
+273%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−306%
|
70−75
+306%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−162%
|
65−70
+162%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−300%
|
85−90
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−207%
|
130−140
+207%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−500%
|
80−85
+500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−725%
|
30−35
+725%
|
| Elden Ring | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−580%
|
30−35
+580%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−406%
|
170−180
+406%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| World of Tanks | 35−40
−268%
|
140−150
+268%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−425%
|
40−45
+425%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−418%
|
55−60
+418%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−575%
|
50−55
+575%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−840%
|
45−50
+840%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−383%
|
27−30
+383%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−286%
|
50−55
+286%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| Elden Ring | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−313%
|
60−65
+313%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−350%
|
27−30
+350%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−400%
|
24−27
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−675%
|
30−35
+675%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−400%
|
24−27
+400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 1400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is ahead in 61 test (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.35 | 20.77 |
| Recency | 27 July 2010 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 60 Watt |
T2000 Mobile has a 288.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 5000M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
