RTX A2000 Mobile vs Quadro K510M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K510M with RTX A2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms Quadro K510M by a whopping 1440% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 901 | 194 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (10 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (3 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 846 MHz | 893 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1687 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 13,250 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 95 Watt (35 - 95 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 13.54 | 108.6 |
| Floating-point performance | 324.9 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro K510M and RTX A2000 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2400 MHz | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 19.2 GB/s | 176.0 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 |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
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 | 5−6
−1460%
| 78
+1460%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1950%
| 41
+1950%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1900%
| 40
+1900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1750%
|
74
+1750%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−940%
|
50−55
+940%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1450%
|
62
+1450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2850%
|
55−60
+2850%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−1575%
|
65−70
+1575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2100%
|
110−120
+2100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−1200%
|
50−55
+1200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−573%
|
100−110
+573%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2167%
|
65−70
+2167%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−1400%
|
135
+1400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−377%
|
62
+377%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−940%
|
50−55
+940%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1150%
|
50
+1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2850%
|
55−60
+2850%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−1575%
|
65−70
+1575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2100%
|
110−120
+2100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−700%
|
32
+700%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−573%
|
100−110
+573%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2167%
|
65−70
+2167%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−1100%
|
108
+1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1820%
|
96
+1820%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−454%
|
70−75
+454%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−940%
|
50−55
+940%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
41
+925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2850%
|
55−60
+2850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2100%
|
110−120
+2100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−573%
|
100−110
+573%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−944%
|
94
+944%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−900%
|
50
+900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−123%
|
29
+123%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2167%
|
65−70
+2167%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2350%
|
45−50
+2350%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−5400%
|
55−60
+5400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2400%
|
25
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2550%
|
53
+2550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−343%
|
30−35
+343%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−960%
|
50−55
+960%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−3100%
|
30−35
+3100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−975%
|
40−45
+975%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−525%
|
24−27
+525%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−633%
|
21−24
+633%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−1733%
|
55
+1733%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1580%
|
80−85
+1580%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−1560%
|
80−85
+1560%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−1850%
|
39
+1850%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1580%
|
80−85
+1580%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1700%
|
36
+1700%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−1500%
|
32
+1500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−2600%
|
27
+2600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1533%
|
49
+1533%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−1475%
|
63
+1475%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−1900%
|
20
+1900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
−1600%
|
17
+1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1550%
|
33
+1550%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 10−12 |
This is how Quadro K510M and RTX A2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 1460% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 1950% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 1900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A2000 Mobile is 5400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX A2000 Mobile surpassed Quadro K510M in all 52 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.66 | 25.56 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 95 Watt |
The RTX A2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K510M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K510M is a mobile workstation card while RTX A2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
