GeForce 9700M GT vs Quadro P2000

Place in the ranking	300	1231
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.50	no data
Power efficiency	17.36	0.82
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GP106	G96
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	29 July 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$585	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	32
Core clock speed	1076 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,400 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	94.72	10.00
Floating-point processing power	3.031 TFLOPS	0.0992 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	148
ROPs	40	8
TMUs	64	16

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	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-II
Length	201 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	160 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	140.2 GB/s	25.6 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

No outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
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 18.05
+3371%

9700M GT 0.52

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
+3394%

9700M GT 208

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
+1784%

9700M GT 1750

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 +5700%	1−2 −5700%
1440p	20	0−1
4K	17	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.09	no data
1440p	29.25	no data
4K	34.41	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +1167%	3−4 −1167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +1167%	3−4 −1167%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +1217%	6−7 −1217%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +5000%	1−2 −5000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +780%	5−6 −780%
Valorant	75−80 +3700%	2−3 −3700%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +1167%	3−4 −1167%
Dota 2	34	0−1
Far Cry 5	72 +800%	8−9 −800%
Fortnite	100−110	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +1217%	6−7 −1217%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 +6600%	1−2 −6600%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +5000%	1−2 −5000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	137 +1613%	8−9 −1613%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +780%	5−6 −780%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +1080%	5−6 −1080%
Valorant	75−80 +3700%	2−3 −3700%
World of Tanks	220−230 +1300%	16−18 −1300%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +1167%	3−4 −1167%
Dota 2	98 +4800%	2−3 −4800%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +700%	8−9 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +1217%	6−7 −1217%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40 +400%	8−9 −400%
Valorant	75−80 +3700%	2−3 −3700%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	30−33	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +3800%	3−4 −3800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18	0−1
World of Tanks	120−130 +12800%	1−2 −12800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +1150%	4−5 −1150%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Forza Horizon 5	30−33	0−1
Metro Exodus	40−45 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +550%	4−5 −550%
Valorant	45−50 +860%	5−6 −860%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +113%	14−16 −113%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +113%	14−16 −113%
Metro Exodus	14−16	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	39 +3800%	1−2 −3800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +113%	14−16 −113%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Dota 2	30−35 +113%	14−16 −113%
Far Cry 5	24−27	0−1
Fortnite	21−24	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	27−30	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	14−16	0−1
Valorant	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%

This is how Quadro P2000 and 9700M GT compete in popular games:

Quadro P2000 is 5700% faster in 1080p

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 12800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P2000 is ahead in 32 tests (94%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.05	0.52
Recency	6 February 2017	29 July 2008
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	16 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	45 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 3371.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 306.3% more advanced lithography process.

9700M GT, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9700M GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation card while GeForce 9700M GT is a notebook one.

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