Quadro P2000 Mobile vs Quadro P5000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P5000 with Quadro P2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P5000
2016
16 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
32.85
+109%

P5000 outperforms P2000 Mobile by a whopping 109% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking166346
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.86no data
Power efficiency12.5914.45
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGP104GP106
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date1 October 2016 (8 years ago)15 February 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,499 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 cores20481152
Core clock speed1607 MHz1291 MHz
Boost clock speed1733 MHz1291 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million4,400 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate277.392.95
Floating-point processing power8.873 TFLOPS2.974 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs16072

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
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno data

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 amount16 GB3.75 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1127 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth192 GB/s96.13 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 Connectors1x DVI, 4x DisplayPortNo outputs
Display Port1.4no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus++
3D Stereo+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2
CUDA6.16.1

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 HD98
+118%
45−50
−118%
4K40
+122%
18−20
−122%

Cost per frame, $

1080p25.50no data
4K62.48no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+117%
30−33
−117%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+130%
30−33
−130%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+135%
40−45
−135%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+117%
30−33
−117%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+130%
30−33
−130%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+119%
70−75
−119%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+113%
40−45
−113%
Metro Exodus 80−85
+134%
35−40
−134%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+123%
30−33
−123%
Valorant 130−140
+117%
60−65
−117%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+135%
40−45
−135%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+117%
30−33
−117%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+130%
30−33
−130%
Dota 2 100−110
+114%
50−55
−114%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+123%
40−45
−123%
Fortnite 150−160
+117%
70−75
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+119%
70−75
−119%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+113%
40−45
−113%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+114%
50−55
−114%
Metro Exodus 80−85
+134%
35−40
−134%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+118%
85−90
−118%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+123%
30−33
−123%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110−120
+124%
50−55
−124%
Valorant 130−140
+117%
60−65
−117%
World of Tanks 270−280
+113%
130−140
−113%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+135%
40−45
−135%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+117%
30−33
−117%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+130%
30−33
−130%
Dota 2 100−110
+114%
50−55
−114%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+123%
40−45
−123%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+119%
70−75
−119%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+113%
40−45
−113%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+118%
85−90
−118%
Valorant 130−140
+117%
60−65
−117%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 55−60
+119%
27−30
−119%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+119%
27−30
−119%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+119%
80−85
−119%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
World of Tanks 210−220
+111%
100−105
−111%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+110%
30−33
−110%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+129%
14−16
−129%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+131%
45−50
−131%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+128%
40−45
−128%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+125%
24−27
−125%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+143%
30−33
−143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+121%
24−27
−121%
Valorant 95−100
+113%
45−50
−113%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+129%
14−16
−129%
Dota 2 60−65
+126%
27−30
−126%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+126%
27−30
−126%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+129%
45−50
−129%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+126%
27−30
−126%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+131%
16−18
−131%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+129%
14−16
−129%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Dota 2 60−65
+126%
27−30
−126%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+119%
21−24
−119%
Fortnite 40−45
+110%
21−24
−110%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+121%
24−27
−121%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Valorant 45−50
+133%
21−24
−133%

This is how Quadro P5000 and P2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P5000 is 118% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P5000 is 122% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 32.85 15.71
Recency 1 October 2016 15 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 3.75 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro P5000 has a 109.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 326.7% higher maximum VRAM amount.

P2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P2000 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P5000 is a workstation card while Quadro P2000 Mobile 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 P5000
Quadro P5000
NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Mobile
Quadro P2000 Mobile

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.


3.6 182 votes

Rate Quadro P5000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 111 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 Mobile 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.