GeForce G 103M vs Quadro P2000 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 Max-Q with GeForce G 103M, including specs and performance data.
P2000 Max-Q outperforms G 103M by a whopping 8413% 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 | 431 | 1491 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | GP107GL | G98 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 July 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 September 2009 (16 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 | 768 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 1215 MHz | 640 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 nm |
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 | medium sized | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 10.0 |
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.
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 | 50 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 20 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 27−30 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+571%
|
7−8
−571%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+367%
|
24−27
−367%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+1545%
|
10−12
−1545%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+975%
|
8−9
−975%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+571%
|
7−8
−571%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 32
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+367%
|
24−27
−367%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+975%
|
8−9
−975%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+571%
|
7−8
−571%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+367%
|
24−27
−367%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+9600%
|
1−2
−9600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+5400%
|
2−3
−5400%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+13500%
|
1−2
−13500%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 70−75
+6900%
|
1−2
−6900%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the P2000 Max-Q is 6900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, P2000 Max-Q surpassed G 103M in all 22 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.77 | 0.15 |
| Recency | 5 July 2017 | 1 September 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
P2000 Max-Q has a 8413% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P2000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G 103M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce G 103M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
