RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Quadro P1000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P1000 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms P1000 by a whopping 290% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 415 | 76 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.71 | 84.16 |
| Power efficiency | 20.08 | 44.70 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | AD107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 February 2017 (7 years ago) | 12 February 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $375 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 1374% better value for money than Quadro P1000.
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 | 640 | 2816 |
| Core clock speed | 1493 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1519 MHz | 2130 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.61 | 187.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.555 TFLOPS | 12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 32 | 88 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 88 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 22 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 145 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | MXM Module | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.13 GB/s | 256.0 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 8.9 |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 46
−270%
| 170−180
+270%
|
| 4K | 11
−264%
| 40−45
+264%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.15
−114%
| 3.82
+114%
|
| 4K | 34.09
−110%
| 16.23
+110%
|
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 114% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 110% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−281%
|
80−85
+281%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−270%
|
85−90
+270%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
−282%
|
130−140
+282%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−268%
|
140−150
+268%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−281%
|
80−85
+281%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−270%
|
85−90
+270%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−270%
|
170−180
+270%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
−275%
|
120−130
+275%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
−267%
|
110−120
+267%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−278%
|
170−180
+278%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−268%
|
140−150
+268%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−281%
|
80−85
+281%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−270%
|
85−90
+270%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−281%
|
160−170
+281%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
−282%
|
130−140
+282%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−270%
|
170−180
+270%
|
| Fortnite | 41
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−270%
|
170−180
+270%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−281%
|
160−170
+281%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
−275%
|
120−130
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 103
−288%
|
400−450
+288%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
−267%
|
110−120
+267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
−271%
|
130−140
+271%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−278%
|
170−180
+278%
|
| World of Tanks | 160−170
−270%
|
600−650
+270%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−268%
|
140−150
+268%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−281%
|
80−85
+281%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−270%
|
85−90
+270%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−281%
|
160−170
+281%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−270%
|
170−180
+270%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−270%
|
170−180
+270%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
−241%
|
300−310
+241%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−278%
|
170−180
+278%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−267%
|
55−60
+267%
|
| Elden Ring | 16−18
−282%
|
65−70
+282%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−275%
|
60−65
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−281%
|
240−250
+281%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| World of Tanks | 80−85
−261%
|
300−310
+261%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−270%
|
85−90
+270%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−285%
|
100−105
+285%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−270%
|
100−105
+270%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−275%
|
90−95
+275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−257%
|
50−55
+257%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−279%
|
110−120
+279%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−286%
|
85−90
+286%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−286%
|
85−90
+286%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−282%
|
130−140
+282%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−286%
|
85−90
+286%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−286%
|
85−90
+286%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−257%
|
50−55
+257%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−285%
|
50−55
+285%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−267%
|
55−60
+267%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
This is how Quadro P1000 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 270% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 264% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.64 | 45.35 |
| Recency | 7 February 2017 | 12 February 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 70 Watt |
Quadro P1000 has 75% lower power consumption.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 289.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P1000 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
