Quadro P520 vs Quadro 2000

Place in the ranking	837	612
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.15	no data
Power efficiency	2.72	20.68
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GF106	GP108
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	24 December 2010 (14 years ago)	23 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$599	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	192	384
Core clock speed	625 MHz	1303 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1493 MHz
Number of transistors	1,170 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	62 Watt	18 Watt
Texture fill rate	20.00	35.83
Floating-point processing power	0.48 TFLOPS	1.147 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	24

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	large
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	178 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	650 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	41.6 GB/s	48.06 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, 2x DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	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 2000 2.46

Quadro P520 5.43
+121%

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

Quadro P520 2092
+121%

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.

Quadro 2000 3884

Quadro P520 7859
+102%

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	9−10 −133%	21 +133%
4K	10−12 −130%	23 +130%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	66.56	no data
4K	59.90	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +0%	11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

This is how Quadro 2000 and Quadro P520 compete in popular games:

Quadro P520 is 133% faster in 1080p
Quadro P520 is 130% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 68 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.46	5.43
Recency	24 December 2010	23 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	62 Watt	18 Watt

Quadro P520 has a 120.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 244.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 2000 is a workstation card while Quadro P520 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.