NVS 300 vs Quadro P2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P2000 and NVS 300, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro P2000
2017
5 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
18.05
+5917%

P2000 outperforms NVS 300 by a whopping 5917% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking3001329
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.490.01
Power efficiency17.361.20
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGP106GT218
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)8 January 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$585 $109

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P2000 has 94800% better value for money than NVS 300.

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 cores102416
Core clock speed1076 MHz520 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,400 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate94.724.160
Floating-point processing power3.031 TFLOPS0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs404
TMUs648

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length201 mm145 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount5 GB512 MB
Memory bus width160 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1752 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidth140.2 GB/s12.64 GB/s

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 Connectors4x DisplayPort1x DMS-59

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA6.11.2

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
+5917%
NVS 300 0.30

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
+5957%
NVS 300 120

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 HD580−1
1440p20-0−1
4K17-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.09no data
1440p29.25no data
4K34.41no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+7800%
1−2
−7800%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55 0−1
Metro Exodus 50−55 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45 0−1
Valorant 75−80
+7500%
1−2
−7500%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Dota 2 34 0−1
Far Cry 5 72
+7100%
1−2
−7100%
Fortnite 100−110
+10000%
1−2
−10000%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+7800%
1−2
−7800%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+6600%
1−2
−6600%
Metro Exodus 50−55 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 137
+6750%
2−3
−6750%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60 0−1
Valorant 75−80
+7500%
1−2
−7500%
World of Tanks 220−230
+7367%
3−4
−7367%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Dota 2 98
+9700%
1−2
−9700%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+6300%
1−2
−6300%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+7800%
1−2
−7800%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40 0−1
Valorant 75−80
+7500%
1−2
−7500%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−33 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+11600%
1−2
−11600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18 0−1
World of Tanks 120−130
+6350%
2−3
−6350%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 30−33 0−1
Metro Exodus 40−45 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27 0−1
Valorant 45−50 0−1

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Dota 2 30−35 0−1
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 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.05 0.30
Recency 6 February 2017 8 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 5 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 16 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 18 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 5916.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 300, on the other hand, has 316.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 300 in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro P2000
Quadro P2000
NVIDIA NVS 300
NVS 300

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 661 vote

Rate Quadro P2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 48 votes

Rate NVS 300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.