RTX A2000 vs Quadro 400

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 400 and RTX A2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro 400
2011
512 MB DDR3, 32 Watt
0.38

RTX A2000 outperforms 400 by a whopping 9253% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1264139
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0185.99
Power efficiency0.8134.81
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT216GA106
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date5 April 2011 (13 years ago)10 August 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$169 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX A2000 has 859800% better value for money than Quadro 400.

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 cores483328
Core clock speed450 MHz562 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1200 MHz
Number of transistors486 million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)32 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate7.200124.8
Floating-point processing power0.108 TFLOPS7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs848
TMUs16104
Tensor Coresno data104
Ray Tracing Coresno data26

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 4.0 x16
Length163 mm167 mm
Width1-slot2-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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed770 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.32 GB/s288.0 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, 1x DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.28.6

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 400 0.38
RTX A2000 35.54
+9253%

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 400 148
RTX A2000 13695
+9153%

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 HD1−2
−9300%
94
+9300%
1440p-0−144
4K-0−128

Cost per frame, $

1080p169.004.78
1440pno data10.20
4Kno data16.04

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.38 35.54
Recency 5 April 2011 10 August 2021
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 32 Watt 70 Watt

Quadro 400 has 118.8% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 9252.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 400 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 400
Quadro 400
NVIDIA RTX A2000
RTX A2000

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.


2.8 13 votes

Rate Quadro 400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 578 votes

Rate RTX A2000 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.