UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs vs Quadro 2000D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 2000D with UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs, including specs and performance data.
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs outperforms Quadro 2000D by an impressive 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 794 | 630 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.41 | no data |
Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Gen. 12 (2021) |
GPU code name | GF106 | Tiger Lake Xe |
Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
Release date | 5 October 2011 (12 years ago) | 30 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
Current price | $151 (0.3x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 32 |
Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 350 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 1450 MHz |
Number of transistors | 1,170 million | no data |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | no data |
Texture fill rate | 20.00 | no data |
Floating-point performance | 480.0 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro 2000D and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
Length | 178 mm | no data |
Width | 1-slot | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | no data |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
Memory clock speed | 2600 MHz | no data |
Memory bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | no data |
Shared memory | no data | + |
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 | 2x DVI | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_0) | DirectX 12_1 |
Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
Vulkan | N/A | no data |
CUDA | 2.1 | no data |
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
−77.8%
| 16
+77.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
−83.3%
|
11
+83.3%
|
Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−80%
|
18
+80%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−75%
|
14
+75%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−100%
|
20−22
+100%
|
Hitman 3 | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16
+77.8%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−85.7%
|
13
+85.7%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
−100%
|
20−22
+100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−80%
|
9
+80%
|
Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16
+77.8%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−85.7%
|
13
+85.7%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−100%
|
20−22
+100%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
−100%
|
12
+100%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
Metro Exodus | 3−4
−100%
|
6
+100%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4
+100%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
−100%
|
20−22
+100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−87.5%
|
15
+87.5%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−100%
|
12
+100%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−100%
|
20−22
+100%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
−100%
|
20−22
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 1−2 |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Metro Exodus | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 1−2 |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 1−2 |
This is how Quadro 2000D and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is 78% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 2.53 | 4.40 |
Recency | 5 October 2011 | 30 March 2021 |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000D in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 2000D is a workstation card while UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.