Radeon PRO WX 2100 vs Quadro P2000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro P2000 outperforms Radeon PRO WX 2100 by 297% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 276 | 609 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 14.02 | 3.00 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Polaris (2016−2019) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | Polaris 12 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (7 years ago) | 21 March 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | $149 |
| Current price | $371 (0.6x MSRP) | $343 (2.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro P2000 has 367% better value for money than PRO WX 2100.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1076 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 1219 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 94.72 | 39.01 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,031 gflops | 1,248 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro P2000 and Radeon PRO WX 2100 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 201 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 160 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 6000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 140.2 GB/s | 48 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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 outperforms Radeon PRO WX 2100 by 297% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro P2000 outperforms Radeon PRO WX 2100 by 297% in Passmark.
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 | 57
+307%
| 14−16
−307%
|
| 1440p | 20
+300%
| 5−6
−300%
|
| 4K | 16
+300%
| 4−5
−300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+350%
|
14−16
−350%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+370%
|
10−11
−370%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
+410%
|
10−11
−410%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+333%
|
14−16
−333%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50−55
+440%
|
10−11
−440%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+344%
|
9−10
−344%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+244%
|
9−10
−244%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
+233%
|
12−14
−233%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+350%
|
14−16
−350%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+310%
|
10−11
−310%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
+410%
|
10−11
−410%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+333%
|
14−16
−333%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50−55
+440%
|
10−11
−440%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+344%
|
9−10
−344%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+244%
|
9−10
−244%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
+233%
|
12−14
−233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+350%
|
14−16
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+250%
|
10−11
−250%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
+410%
|
10−11
−410%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+333%
|
14−16
−333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+300%
|
7−8
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+127%
|
10−12
−127%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+310%
|
10−11
−310%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9 | 0−1 |
This is how Quadro P2000 and PRO WX 2100 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P2000 is 307% faster than PRO WX 2100 in 1080p
- Quadro P2000 is 300% faster than PRO WX 2100 in 1440p
- Quadro P2000 is 300% faster than PRO WX 2100 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 1200% faster than the PRO WX 2100.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P2000 surpassed PRO WX 2100 in all 61 of our tests.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 18.77 | 4.73 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 21 March 2018 |
| Cost | $585 | $149 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation card while Radeon PRO WX 2100 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.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
