Quadro 2000M vs GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1070 Ti with Quadro 2000M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1070 Ti outperforms 2000M by a whopping 1822% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 129 | 909 |
| Place by popularity | 97 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 26.60 | 0.28 |
| Power efficiency | 14.53 | 2.47 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GF106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 November 2017 (7 years ago) | 13 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $46.56 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1070 Ti has 9400% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.
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 | 2432 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1683 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 255.8 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.186 TFLOPS | 0.4224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 152 | 32 |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.3 GB/s | 28.8 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 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.
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 112
+195%
| 38
−195%
|
| 1440p | 72
+2300%
| 3−4
−2300%
|
| 4K | 54
+2600%
| 2−3
−2600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.56
−191%
| 1.23
+191%
|
| 1440p | 5.54
+180%
| 15.52
−180%
|
| 4K | 7.39
+215%
| 23.28
−215%
|
- Quadro 2000M has 191% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1070 Ti has 180% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1070 Ti has 215% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+2000%
|
5−6
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+10000%
|
2−3
−10000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+1925%
|
4−5
−1925%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+2000%
|
5−6
−2000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+2400%
|
5−6
−2400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+10000%
|
2−3
−10000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+1925%
|
4−5
−1925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 114
+5600%
|
2−3
−5600%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+1850%
|
8−9
−1850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+1270%
|
10−11
−1270%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+5450%
|
2−3
−5450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1182%
|
10−12
−1182%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+444%
|
35−40
−444%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+2000%
|
5−6
−2000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+2400%
|
5−6
−2400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+10000%
|
2−3
−10000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+610%
|
35−40
−610%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+1925%
|
4−5
−1925%
|
| Dota 2 | 127
+505%
|
21−24
−505%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 108
+5300%
|
2−3
−5300%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+1850%
|
8−9
−1850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+1270%
|
10−11
−1270%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+5450%
|
2−3
−5450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130
+2900%
|
4−5
−2900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 66
+2100%
|
3−4
−2100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1182%
|
10−12
−1182%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+1629%
|
7−8
−1629%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+444%
|
35−40
−444%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+2120%
|
5−6
−2120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+1925%
|
4−5
−1925%
|
| Dota 2 | 121
+476%
|
21−24
−476%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 102
+5000%
|
2−3
−5000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100
+900%
|
10−11
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1182%
|
10−12
−1182%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+929%
|
7−8
−929%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+444%
|
35−40
−444%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 109
+1263%
|
8−9
−1263%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+8800%
|
1−2
−8800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+1777%
|
12−14
−1777%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 40
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+872%
|
18−20
−872%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+1657%
|
14−16
−1657%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+1975%
|
4−5
−1975%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75
+2400%
|
3−4
−2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 81
+1520%
|
5−6
−1520%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+2067%
|
3−4
−2067%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 72
+2300%
|
3−4
−2300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 67
+347%
|
14−16
−347%
|
| Metro Exodus | 25
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+2050%
|
10−11
−2050%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 105
+2525%
|
4−5
−2525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 36
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
This is how GTX 1070 Ti and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:
- GTX 1070 Ti is 195% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1070 Ti is 2300% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1070 Ti is 2600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1070 Ti is 10000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1070 Ti surpassed Quadro 2000M in all 53 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.86 | 1.71 |
| Recency | 2 November 2017 | 13 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 55 Watt |
GTX 1070 Ti has a 1821.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 2000M, on the other hand, has 227.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is a desktop card while Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
