Arc A770 vs Quadro P2000

Place in the ranking	297	154
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.63	55.19
Power efficiency	17.39	10.49
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GP106	DG2-512
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$585	$329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A770 has 473% better value for money than Quadro P2000.

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	1024	4096
Core clock speed	1076 MHz	2100 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	4,400 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	94.72	614.4
Floating-point processing power	3.031 TFLOPS	19.66 TFLOPS
ROPs	40	128
TMUs	64	256
Tensor Cores	no data	512
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	32

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 x16
Length	201 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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	5 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	160 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	140.2 GB/s	512.0 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	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI	-	+

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	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
CUDA	6.1	-

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.

Quadro P2000 18.90

Arc A770 34.21
+81%

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.

Quadro P2000 7268

Arc A770 13154
+81%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Quadro P2000 8387

Arc A770 41303
+392%

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.

Quadro P2000 32964

Arc A770 103295
+213%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Quadro P2000 6847

Arc A770 32666
+377%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Quadro P2000 43566

Arc A770 139166
+219%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Quadro P2000 350317

Arc A770 628292
+79.3%

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	58 −93.1%	112 +93.1%
1440p	20 −220%	64 +220%
4K	17 −141%	41 +141%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.09 −243%	2.94 +243%
1440p	29.25 −469%	5.14 +469%
4K	34.41 −329%	8.02 +329%

Arc A770 has 243% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Arc A770 has 469% lower cost per frame in 1440p
Arc A770 has 329% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −241%	116 +241%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −94.6%	70−75 +94.6%
Elden Ring	60−65 −46.7%	88 +46.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −60%	95−100 +60%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −191%	99 +191%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −94.6%	70−75 +94.6%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −285%	304 +285%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −135%	120 +135%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −56.8%	65−70 +56.8%
Valorant	75−80 −78.9%	130−140 +78.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −60%	95−100 +60%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −159%	88 +159%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −94.6%	70−75 +94.6%
Dota 2	34 −209%	105 +209%
Elden Ring	60−65 −95%	110−120 +95%
Far Cry 5	72 +1.4%	71 −1.4%
Fortnite	100−110 −54.5%	150−160 +54.5%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −227%	258 +227%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 −56.7%	105 +56.7%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −94.1%	99 +94.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	137 −38%	180−190 +38%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −56.8%	65−70 +56.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −100%	110−120 +100%
Valorant	75−80 −78.9%	130−140 +78.9%
World of Tanks	220−230 −24.1%	270−280 +24.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −60%	95−100 +60%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −144%	83 +144%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −94.6%	70−75 +94.6%
Dota 2	98 −73.5%	170−180 +73.5%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −42.2%	90−95 +42.2%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −173%	216 +173%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40 −373%	180−190 +373%
Valorant	75−80 −78.9%	130−140 +78.9%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 −55.2%	45 +55.2%
Elden Ring	30−35 −113%	65−70 +113%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 −50%	45 +50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 −4.2%	170−180 +4.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −94.1%	30−35 +94.1%
World of Tanks	120−130 −69.8%	210−220 +69.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −73.7%	65−70 +73.7%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −269%	59 +269%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −120%	30−35 +120%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −118%	100−110 +118%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −229%	158 +229%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −112%	91 +112%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −140%	60 +140%
Valorant	45−50 −113%	100−110 +113%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −86.7%	28 +86.7%
Dota 2	30−35 −50%	48 +50%
Elden Ring	14−16 −121%	30−35 +121%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 −50%	48 +50%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −236%	47 +236%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	39 −177%	100−110 +177%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −83.3%	21−24 +83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −50%	48 +50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −105%	35−40 +105%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −127%	30−35 +127%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Dota 2	30−35 −71.9%	55−60 +71.9%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −100%	45−50 +100%
Fortnite	21−24 −109%	45−50 +109%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −218%	89 +218%
Valorant	21−24 −136%	50−55 +136%

This is how Quadro P2000 and Arc A770 compete in popular games:

Arc A770 is 93% faster in 1080p
Arc A770 is 220% faster in 1440p
Arc A770 is 141% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 1% faster.
in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A770 is 373% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P2000 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Arc A770 is ahead in 60 tests (98%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.90	34.21
Recency	6 February 2017	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	225 Watt

Quadro P2000 has 200% lower power consumption.

Arc A770, on the other hand, has a 81% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 220% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A770 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.