RTX A2000 Mobile vs Quadro 4000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 4000 with RTX A2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 4000
2010
2 GB GDDR5, 142 Watt
3.68

RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms 4000 by a whopping 573% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking715219
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.19no data
Power efficiency1.8618.70
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGF100GA106
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date2 November 2010 (14 years ago)12 April 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores2562560
Core clock speed475 MHz893 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1358 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million13,250 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)142 Watt95 Watt
Texture fill rate15.20108.6
Floating-point processing power0.4864 TFLOPS6.953 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs3280
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed702 MHz1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.86 GB/s176.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA2.08.6
DLSS-+

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.

Quadro 4000 3.68
RTX A2000 Mobile 24.75
+573%

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 4000 1474
RTX A2000 Mobile 9909
+572%

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 HD10−12
−690%
79
+690%
1440p6−7
−617%
43
+617%
4K5−6
−640%
37
+640%

Cost per frame, $

1080p119.90no data
1440p199.83no data
4K239.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 74
+0%
74
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 135
+0%
135
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Metro Exodus 72
+0%
72
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 110
+0%
110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+0%
25
+0%
Dota 2 119
+0%
119
+0%
Far Cry 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 108
+0%
108
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 106
+0%
106
+0%
Metro Exodus 53
+0%
53
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 69
+0%
69
+0%
World of Tanks 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20
+0%
20
+0%
Dota 2 129
+0%
129
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 94
+0%
94
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Dota 2 50
+0%
50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 50
+0%
50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
World of Tanks 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 63
+0%
63
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 49
+0%
49
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 44
+0%
44
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 44
+0%
44
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+0%
44
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 72
+0%
72
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35
+0%
35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

This is how Quadro 4000 and RTX A2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 690% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 617% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 640% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.68 24.75
Recency 2 November 2010 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 142 Watt 95 Watt

RTX A2000 Mobile has a 572.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 400% more advanced lithography process, and 49.5% lower power consumption.

The RTX A2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 4000 is a workstation card while RTX A2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

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 4000
Quadro 4000
NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile
RTX A2000 Mobile

Other comparisons

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.


3.5 188 votes

Rate Quadro 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 101 vote

Rate RTX A2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 4000 or RTX A2000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.