Quadro NVS 420 vs Quadro 2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 2000 and Quadro NVS 420, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro 2000
2010
1 GB GDDR5, 62 Watt
2.46
+694%

2000 outperforms NVS 420 by a whopping 694% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8371322
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.150.01
Power efficiency2.720.53
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGF106G98
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date24 December 2010 (14 years ago)20 January 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 $131.43

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 2000 has 1400% better value for money than NVS 420.

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 cores1928
Core clock speed625 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)62 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate20.004.400
Floating-point processing power0.48 TFLOPS0.0224 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs328

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length178 mmno data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed650 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth41.6 GB/s11.2 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.11.1

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 2000 2.46
+694%
NVS 420 0.31

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 2000 946
+688%
NVS 420 120

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.46 0.31
Recency 24 December 2010 20 January 2009
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 62 Watt 40 Watt

Quadro 2000 has a 693.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 420, on the other hand, has 55% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 420 in performance tests.


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 2000
Quadro 2000
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 420
Quadro NVS 420

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.


3.4 313 votes

Rate Quadro 2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 9 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 420 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.