Quadro 400 vs Quadro P2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P2000 and Quadro 400, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro P2000
2017
5 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
18.66
+4811%

P2000 outperforms 400 by a whopping 4811% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3041275
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.640.01
Power efficiency17.340.83
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGP106GT216
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date6 February 2017 (8 years ago)5 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$585 $169

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

Quadro P2000 has 96300% better value for money than Quadro 400.

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 cores102448
Core clock speed1076 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,400 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate94.727.200
Floating-point processing power3.031 TFLOPS0.108 TFLOPS
ROPs408
TMUs6416

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 mm163 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 MHz770 MHz
Memory bandwidth140.2 GB/s12.32 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 DVI, 1x DisplayPort

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 18.66
+4811%
Quadro 400 0.38

  • Passmark

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
+4811%
Quadro 400 148

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 HD56
+5500%
1−2
−5500%
1440p20-0−1
4K16-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.45
+1518%
169.00
−1518%
1440p29.25no data
4K36.56no data
  • Quadro P2000 has 1518% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 45−50 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
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
+5200%
1−2
−5200%
Valorant 130−140
+6700%
2−3
−6700%
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
+5425%
4−5
−5425%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Dota 2 102
+5000%
2−3
−5000%
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%
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%
Fortnite 45 0−1
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
+5467%
3−4
−5467%
Valorant 170−180
+5633%
3−4
−5633%
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 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 30−35 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 0−1
Fortnite 24 0−1
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
+4900%
2−3
−4900%
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
Fortnite 10 0−1

This is how Quadro P2000 and Quadro 400 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P2000 is 5500% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.66 0.38
Recency 6 February 2017 5 April 2011
Maximum RAM amount 5 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 16 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 32 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 4810.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 400, on the other hand, has 134.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 400 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 Quadro 400
Quadro 400

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
2.8
13 votes

Rate Quadro 400 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 Quadro 400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.