GeForce RTX 2070 Super Mobile vs Quadro GV100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro GV100 with GeForce RTX 2070 Super Mobile, including specs and performance data.
GV100 outperforms RTX 2070 Super Mobile by a considerable 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 58 | 138 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.19 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 14.11 | 21.72 |
| Architecture | Volta (2017−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GV100 | TU104B |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 March 2018 (6 years ago) | 2 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $8,999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 5120 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1132 MHz | 1140 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1627 MHz | 1380 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 21,100 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 520.6 | 220.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 16.66 TFLOPS | 7.066 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 128 | 64 |
| TMUs | 320 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | 640 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
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 | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 848 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 868.4 GB/s | 448.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.140 |
| CUDA | 7.0 | 7.5 |
| DLSS | + | + |
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 | 160−170
+34.5%
| 119
−34.5%
|
| 1440p | 100−110
+31.6%
| 76
−31.6%
|
| 4K | 60−65
+33.3%
| 45
−33.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 56.24 | no data |
| 1440p | 89.99 | no data |
| 4K | 149.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 164
+0%
|
164
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 152
+0%
|
152
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 156
+0%
|
156
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 124
+0%
|
124
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Valorant | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
This is how Quadro GV100 and RTX 2070 Super Mobile compete in popular games:
- Quadro GV100 is 34% faster in 1080p
- Quadro GV100 is 32% faster in 1440p
- Quadro GV100 is 33% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 44.33 | 31.39 |
| Recency | 27 March 2018 | 2 April 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 115 Watt |
Quadro GV100 has a 41.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX 2070 Super Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 117.4% lower power consumption.
The Quadro GV100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 2070 Super Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro GV100 is a workstation card while GeForce RTX 2070 Super Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
