RTX A2000 Mobile vs Quadro FX 2800M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2800M and RTX A2000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms FX 2800M by a whopping 2223% 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 | 1136 | 255 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.01 | 18.45 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | G92 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 December 2009 (15 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (4 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 | 96 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1215 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1687 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 135.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.288 TFLOPS | 8.637 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 48 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 192.0 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 | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| 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 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 | 31
−155%
| 79
+155%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−4100%
| 42
+4100%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−3700%
| 38
+3700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3600%
|
74
+3600%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1680%
|
89
+1680%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3000%
|
62
+3000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−4700%
|
96
+4700%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−11600%
|
110−120
+11600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1450%
|
90−95
+1450%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1780%
|
94
+1780%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−922%
|
90−95
+922%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−426%
|
160−170
+426%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−920%
|
250−260
+920%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50
+2400%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−867%
|
145
+867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−4300%
|
88
+4300%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−11600%
|
110−120
+11600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1450%
|
90−95
+1450%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1140%
|
62
+1140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−4300%
|
44
+4300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−922%
|
90−95
+922%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1500%
|
96
+1500%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−426%
|
160−170
+426%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1950%
|
41
+1950%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−760%
|
129
+760%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−4050%
|
83
+4050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1450%
|
90−95
+1450%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−740%
|
42
+740%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−922%
|
90−95
+922%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−733%
|
50
+733%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−426%
|
160−170
+426%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−11600%
|
110−120
+11600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−2683%
|
160−170
+2683%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1491%
|
170−180
+1491%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 200−210 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 35−40 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−5500%
|
55−60
+5500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−193%
|
44
+193%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−2640%
|
130−140
+2640%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| God of War | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| God of War | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how FX 2800M and RTX A2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 155% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 4100% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 3700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX A2000 Mobile is 11600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A2000 Mobile performs better in 38 tests (61%)
- there's a draw in 24 tests (39%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.99 | 23.00 |
| Recency | 1 December 2009 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 95 Watt |
FX 2800M has 26.7% lower power consumption.
RTX A2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 2223.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 712.5% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
