Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs Quadro NVS 160M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 160M and Quadro T2000 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
T2000 Max-Q outperforms 160M by a whopping 4643% 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 | 1343 | 358 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.24 | 31.85 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G98 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2008 (17 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (6 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 | 8 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1620 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.640 | 103.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0232 TFLOPS | 3.318 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 16 KB | 1024 KB |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-I | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 11.2 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 7.5 |
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.
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 | 1−2
−5600%
| 57
+5600%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 26 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 38 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1625%
|
65−70
+1625%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−800%
|
60−65
+800%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−412%
|
130−140
+412%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1436%
|
210−220
+1436%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1140%
|
124
+1140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1625%
|
65−70
+1625%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 33 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−800%
|
60−65
+800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1160%
|
63
+1160%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−412%
|
130−140
+412%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1030%
|
113
+1030%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1625%
|
65−70
+1625%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−800%
|
60−65
+800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−560%
|
33
+560%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−412%
|
130−140
+412%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 120−130 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−3950%
|
160−170
+3950%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4100%
|
40−45
+4100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 35−40 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
This is how NVS 160M and T2000 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- T2000 Max-Q is 5600% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Max-Q is 4650% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T2000 Max-Q performs better in 27 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (56%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.35 | 16.60 |
| Recency | 15 August 2008 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 40 Watt |
NVS 160M has 233.3% lower power consumption.
T2000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 4642.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M 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.
