Quadro 2000M vs Arc A350M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A350M with Quadro 2000M, including specs and performance data.

Arc A350M
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 25 Watt
14.69
+627%

Arc A350M outperforms 2000M by a whopping 627% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking352879
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.28
Power efficiency40.692.54
ArchitectureGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameDG2-128GF106
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date30 March 2022 (2 years ago)13 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$46.56

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 cores768192
Core clock speed300 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate55.2017.60
Floating-point processing power1.766 TFLOPS0.4224 TFLOPS
ROPs2416
TMUs4832
Ray Tracing Cores6no data

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 4.0 x8MXM-A (3.0)

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 typeGDDR6DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s28.8 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.65.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA-2.1

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.

Arc A350M 14.69
+627%
Quadro 2000M 2.02

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.

Arc A350M 10730
+751%
Quadro 2000M 1261

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.

Arc A350M 31023
+368%
Quadro 2000M 6634

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 HD37
−2.7%
38
+2.7%
1440p18
+800%
2−3
−800%
4K8
+700%
1−2
−700%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data1.23
1440pno data23.28
4Kno data46.56

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 27
+575%
4−5
−575%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35
+775%
4−5
−775%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+4500%
1−2
−4500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+375%
4−5
−375%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1063%
8−9
−1063%
Hitman 3 27−30
+286%
7−8
−286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+306%
18−20
−306%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+700%
6−7
−700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+360%
10−11
−360%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+117%
35−40
−117%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20
+900%
2−3
−900%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+4500%
1−2
−4500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+300%
4−5
−300%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1063%
8−9
−1063%
Hitman 3 27−30
+286%
7−8
−286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+306%
18−20
−306%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+700%
6−7
−700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 53
+430%
10−11
−430%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+117%
35−40
−117%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16
+700%
2−3
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+200%
4−5
−200%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1063%
8−9
−1063%
Hitman 3 27−30
+286%
7−8
−286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+306%
18−20
−306%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+350%
10−11
−350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+117%
35−40
−117%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+630%
10−11
−630%
Hitman 3 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+383%
6−7
−383%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 37
+640%
5−6
−640%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+700%
10−12
−700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Hitman 3 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+689%
9−10
−689%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+650%
2−3
−650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%

This is how Arc A350M and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 2000M is 3% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A350M is 800% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A350M is 700% faster in 4K

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A350M is 4500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Arc A350M surpassed Quadro 2000M in all 53 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.69 2.02
Recency 30 March 2022 13 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 6 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 55 Watt

Arc A350M has a 627.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 120% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 2000M 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.


Intel Arc A350M
Arc A350M
NVIDIA Quadro 2000M
Quadro 2000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.8 56 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 92 votes

Rate Quadro 2000M 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.