Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Quadro NVS 510M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 510M and Quadro T2000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 510M
2006
256 MB GDDR3, 35 Watt
0.62

T2000 Mobile outperforms NVS 510M by a whopping 3250% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1202270
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.2223.86
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG71TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date21 August 2006 (18 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)

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 coresno data1024
Core clock speed450 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors278 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate10.80114.2
Floating-point processing powerno data3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs2464

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 datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount256 MB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth19.2 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 (12_1)
Shader Model3.06.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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.

NVS 510M 0.62
T2000 Mobile 20.77
+3250%

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.

NVS 510M 238
T2000 Mobile 7985
+3255%

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Elden Ring 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Elden Ring 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
World of Tanks 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Elden Ring 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
World of Tanks 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Elden Ring 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.62 20.77
Recency 21 August 2006 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 60 Watt

NVS 510M has 71.4% lower power consumption.

T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 3250% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 510M 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 NVS 510M
Quadro NVS 510M
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
Quadro T2000 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.


3.7 3 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 510M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 398 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Mobile 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.