Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs Quadro P2000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P2000 with Quadro T2000 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P2000
2017
5 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
18.90
+5.3%

P2000 outperforms T2000 Max-Q by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking296309
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.64no data
Power efficiency17.3930.96
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGP106TU117
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 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 cores10241024
Core clock speed1076 MHz1200 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHz1620 MHz
Number of transistors4,400 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate94.72103.7
Floating-point processing power3.031 TFLOPS3.318 TFLOPS
ROPs4032
TMUs6464

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length201 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount5 GB4 GB
Memory bus width160 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1752 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth140.2 GB/s128.0 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA6.17.5

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 18.90
+5.3%
T2000 Max-Q 17.95

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
+5.3%
T2000 Max-Q 6901

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Quadro P2000 8387
T2000 Max-Q 11461
+36.7%

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
T2000 Max-Q 39269
+19.1%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Quadro P2000 6847
T2000 Max-Q 8262
+20.7%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Quadro P2000 43566
+6%
T2000 Max-Q 41106

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Quadro P2000 350317
+366%
T2000 Max-Q 75193

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 HD58
+1.8%
57
−1.8%
1440p20
−30%
26
+30%
4K17
−118%
37
+118%

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
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Elden Ring 60−65
+7.1%
55−60
−7.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+3.4%
55−60
−3.4%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+6.8%
70−75
−6.8%
Metro Exodus 50−55
−13.7%
58
+13.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−45.5%
64
+45.5%
Valorant 75−80
−13.2%
86
+13.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+3.4%
55−60
−3.4%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Dota 2 34
−20.6%
41
+20.6%
Elden Ring 60−65
+7.1%
55−60
−7.1%
Far Cry 5 72
+4.3%
69
−4.3%
Fortnite 100−110
+4.1%
95−100
−4.1%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+6.8%
70−75
−6.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+4.7%
60−65
−4.7%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+27.5%
40
−27.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 137
+10.5%
120−130
−10.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+4.8%
40−45
−4.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+5.4%
55−60
−5.4%
Valorant 75−80
+68.9%
45
−68.9%
World of Tanks 220−230
+3.2%
210−220
−3.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+3.4%
55−60
−3.4%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+6.3%
30−35
−6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Dota 2 98
−15.3%
113
+15.3%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+3.2%
60−65
−3.2%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+6.8%
70−75
−6.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40
−210%
120−130
+210%
Valorant 75−80
+5.6%
70−75
−5.6%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
Elden Ring 30−35
+6.9%
27−30
−6.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
+7.1%
27−30
−7.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+2.4%
160−170
−2.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
World of Tanks 120−130
+4.9%
120−130
−4.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+5.6%
35−40
−5.6%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+8.7%
45−50
−8.7%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+6.7%
45−50
−6.7%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+7.5%
40−45
−7.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Valorant 45−50
+4.3%
45−50
−4.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Dota 2 30−35
+3.2%
30−35
−3.2%
Elden Ring 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 39
−35.9%
50−55
+35.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+11.8%
16−18
−11.8%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Dota 2 30−35
−43.8%
46
+43.8%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%
Fortnite 21−24
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+7.7%
24−27
−7.7%
Valorant 21−24
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%

This is how Quadro P2000 and T2000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P2000 is 2% faster in 1080p
  • T2000 Max-Q is 30% faster in 1440p
  • T2000 Max-Q is 118% faster in 4K

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

  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 69% faster.
  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T2000 Max-Q is 210% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro P2000 is ahead in 55 tests (87%)
  • T2000 Max-Q is ahead in 8 tests (13%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.90 17.95
Recency 6 February 2017 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 5 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 40 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 5.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount.

T2000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 87.5% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P2000 and Quadro T2000 Max-Q.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation card while Quadro T2000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation one.


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 Quadro T2000 Max-Q
Quadro T2000 Max-Q

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.


3.5 656 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 75 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Max-Q 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.