Radeon R5 230 vs Quadro P2000

Place in the ranking	297	1211
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.56	no data
Power efficiency	17.39	2.07
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	GP106	Caicos
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	3 April 2014 (10 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 cores	1024	160
Core clock speed	1076 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,400 million	370 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	19 Watt
Texture fill rate	94.72	5.000
Floating-point processing power	3.031 TFLOPS	0.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	40	4
TMUs	64	8

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).

Bus support	no data	PCIe 1.0 x4
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	201 mm	168 mm
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	N/A

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 type	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	160 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	140.2 GB/s	10.67 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 Connectors	4x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	-	+
PowerPlay	no data	+
DDMA audio	no data	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 11
Shader Model	6.4	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	-
CUDA	6.1	-

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
+3216%

R5 230 0.57

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
+3189%

R5 230 221

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	58 +5700%	1−2 −5700%
1440p	20	0−1
4K	17	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.09	no data
1440p	29.25	no data
4K	34.41	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
Elden Ring	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +3850%	2−3 −3850%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +5000%	1−2 −5000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Valorant	75−80 +3700%	2−3 −3700%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
Dota 2	34 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Elden Ring	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Far Cry 5	72 +3500%	2−3 −3500%
Fortnite	100−110 +3267%	3−4 −3267%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +3850%	2−3 −3850%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 +3250%	2−3 −3250%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +5000%	1−2 −5000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	137 +3325%	4−5 −3325%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Valorant	75−80 +3700%	2−3 −3700%
World of Tanks	220−230 +3633%	6−7 −3633%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
Dota 2	98 +4800%	2−3 −4800%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +6300%	1−2 −6300%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +3850%	2−3 −3850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Valorant	75−80 +3700%	2−3 −3700%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30	0−1
Elden Ring	30−35	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +3260%	5−6 −3260%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18	0−1
World of Tanks	120−130 +4200%	3−4 −4200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16	0−1
Far Cry 5	50−55 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27	0−1
Valorant	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16	0−1
Dota 2	30−35	0−1
Elden Ring	14−16	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35	0−1
Metro Exodus	14−16	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	39 +3800%	1−2 −3800%
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	14−16	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
Valorant	21−24	0−1

This is how Quadro P2000 and R5 230 compete in popular games:

Quadro P2000 is 5700% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.90	0.57
Recency	6 February 2017	3 April 2014
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	19 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 3215.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

R5 230, on the other hand, has 294.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 230 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R5 230 is a desktop one.

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