GeForce GT 230M vs Quadro P2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 with GeForce GT 230M, including specs and performance data.
P2000 outperforms GT 230M by a whopping 3300% 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 | 334 | 1264 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.79 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 17.62 | 1.69 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (8 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1076 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 94.72 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.031 TFLOPS | 0.1056 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 158 |
| 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 |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 160 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 800 (GDDR3), Up to 1066 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 140.2 GB/s | 16 (DDR2), 25 (DDR3) |
| 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 | 4x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVI |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | HDA |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| 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.
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 | 56
+5500%
| 1−2
−5500%
|
| 1440p | 20 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 16 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 10.45 | no data |
| 1440p | 29.25 | no data |
| 4K | 36.56 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−105
+4900%
|
2−3
−4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−105
+4900%
|
2−3
−4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 144
+3500%
|
4−5
−3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53
+563%
|
8−9
−563%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+407%
|
27−30
−407%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−105
+4900%
|
2−3
−4900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+1200%
|
16−18
−1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+827%
|
10−12
−827%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 60
+5900%
|
1−2
−5900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+6500%
|
1−2
−6500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41
+413%
|
8−9
−413%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+660%
|
5−6
−660%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+407%
|
27−30
−407%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Dota 2 | 98
+791%
|
10−12
−791%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+407%
|
27−30
−407%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+6350%
|
2−3
−6350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+3220%
|
5−6
−3220%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+3300%
|
5−6
−3300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+113%
|
14−16
−113%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 100−105
+3233%
|
3−4
−3233%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 12−14 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
This is how Quadro P2000 and GT 230M compete in popular games:
- Quadro P2000 is 5500% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 6350% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P2000 surpassed GT 230M in all 26 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.34 | 0.51 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 15 June 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 23 Watt |
Quadro P2000 has a 3300% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
GT 230M, on the other hand, has 226.1% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 230M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
