RTX A2000 12 GB vs Quadro FX 1800M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 1800M with RTX A2000 12 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 12 GB outperforms 1800M by a whopping 2739% 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 | 1103 | 177 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 35.36 |
| Power efficiency | 1.97 | 35.97 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 June 2009 (16 years ago) | 23 November 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 72 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 561 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.46 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.162 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 48 |
| TMUs | 24 | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 26 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 3.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 3 MB |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 550 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 35.2 GB/s | 288.0 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2614%
|
190−200
+2614%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2678%
|
250−260
+2678%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2713%
|
900−950
+2713%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−2579%
|
750−800
+2579%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−2713%
|
450−500
+2713%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2614%
|
190−200
+2614%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2678%
|
250−260
+2678%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2614%
|
190−200
+2614%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2713%
|
900−950
+2713%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−2713%
|
450−500
+2713%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2614%
|
190−200
+2614%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2678%
|
250−260
+2678%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2614%
|
190−200
+2614%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2713%
|
900−950
+2713%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−2614%
|
190−200
+2614%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−2400%
|
300−310
+2400%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−2400%
|
350−400
+2400%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−2733%
|
170−180
+2733%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.15 | 32.65 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 23 November 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 70 Watt |
FX 1800M has 55.6% lower power consumption.
RTX A2000 12 GB, on the other hand, has a 2739.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A2000 12 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 1800M is a mobile workstation graphics card while RTX A2000 12 GB is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
