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
18.47
+5858%

P2000 outperforms NVS 300 by a whopping 5858% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3041324
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.660.01
Power efficiency17.291.21
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGP106GT218
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date6 February 2017 (8 years ago)8 January 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$585 $109

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Quadro P2000 has 96500% 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 and SDK 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.

Quadro P2000 18.47
+5858%
NVS 300 0.31

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
+5857%
NVS 300 122

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 HD560−1
1440p20-0−1
4K16-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.45no data
1440p29.25no data
4K36.56no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50 0−1
Battlefield 5 70−75
+7300%
1−2
−7300%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Far Cry 5 47 0−1
Fortnite 144
+7100%
2−3
−7100%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+7200%
1−2
−7200%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 53 0−1
Valorant 130−140
+6700%
2−3
−6700%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50 0−1
Battlefield 5 70−75
+7300%
1−2
−7300%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+7267%
3−4
−7267%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Dota 2 102
+10100%
1−2
−10100%
Far Cry 5 41 0−1
Fortnite 60
+5900%
1−2
−5900%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+7200%
1−2
−7200%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+6600%
1−2
−6600%
Metro Exodus 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 41 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 38 0−1
Valorant 130−140
+6700%
2−3
−6700%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
+7300%
1−2
−7300%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Dota 2 98
+9700%
1−2
−9700%
Far Cry 5 35 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+7200%
1−2
−7200%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 29 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25 0−1
Valorant 130−140
+6700%
2−3
−6700%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 45 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 20−22 0−1
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
+8300%
2−3
−8300%
Valorant 170−180
+8500%
2−3
−8500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Far Cry 5 21 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 30−35 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35 0−1
Metro Exodus 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13 0−1
Valorant 100−105
+9900%
1−2
−9900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9 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
Forza Horizon 5 16−18 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.47 0.31
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 5858.1% 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.

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.


3.5 665 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 49 votes

Rate NVS 300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P2000 or NVS 300, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.