Quadro FX 2500M vs Quadro P2000 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P2000 Mobile and Quadro FX 2500M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

P2000 Mobile
2019
3.75 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
13.53
+2661%

P2000 Mobile outperforms FX 2500M by a whopping 2661% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3541226
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency14.250.86
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGP106G71
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date15 February 2019 (6 years ago)29 September 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.99

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 cores115232
Core clock speed1291 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1291 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors4,400 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate92.9512.00
Floating-point processing power2.974 TFLOPSno data
ROPs3216
TMUs7224

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 sizemedium sizedlarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-III

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount3.75 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz600 MHz
Memory bandwidth96.13 GB/s38.4 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

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.43.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2N/A
CUDA6.1-

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

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 30 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.53 0.49
Recency 15 February 2019 29 September 2005
Maximum RAM amount 3.75 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 16 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 45 Watt

P2000 Mobile has a 2661.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 650% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 462.5% more advanced lithography process.

FX 2500M, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.

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 P2000 Mobile
Quadro P2000
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M
Quadro FX 2500M

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.


4 112 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 4 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P2000 Mobile or Quadro FX 2500M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.