A10G vs Quadro P2000

Place in the ranking	304	70
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.90	no data
Power efficiency	17.30	22.29
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GP106	GA102
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	6 February 2017 (8 years ago)	12 April 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$585	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 cores	1024	9216
Core clock speed	1076 MHz	1320 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	1710 MHz
Number of transistors	4,400 million	28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	150 Watt
Texture fill rate	94.72	492.5
Floating-point processing power	3.031 TFLOPS	31.52 TFLOPS
ROPs	40	96
TMUs	64	288
Tensor Cores	no data	288
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	72

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	201 mm	267 mm
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	8-pin EPS

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	12 GB
Memory bus width	160 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	1563 MHz
Memory bandwidth	140.2 GB/s	600.2 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 Connectors

4x DisplayPort

No outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.2
CUDA	6.1	8.6
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 P2000 18.86

A10G 48.59
+158%

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 P2000 7268

A10G 18723
+158%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro P2000 22916

A10G 163430
+613%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro P2000 23519

A10G 145016
+517%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro P2000 21668

A10G 187763
+767%

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	56 −150%	140−150 +150%
1440p	20 −150%	50−55 +150%
4K	16 −150%	40−45 +150%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.45	no data
1440p	29.25	no data
4K	36.56	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	45−50 −155%	120−130 +155%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −158%	85−90 +158%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −157%	95−100 +157%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	45−50 −155%	120−130 +155%
Battlefield 5	70−75 −157%	190−200 +157%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −158%	85−90 +158%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −157%	95−100 +157%
Far Cry 5	47 −155%	120−130 +155%
Fortnite	144 −143%	350−400 +143%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 −147%	180−190 +147%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 −145%	120−130 +145%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	53 −145%	130−140 +145%
Valorant	130−140 −157%	350−400 +157%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	45−50 −155%	120−130 +155%
Battlefield 5	70−75 −157%	190−200 +157%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −158%	85−90 +158%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	220−230 −149%	550−600 +149%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −157%	95−100 +157%
Dota 2	102 −155%	260−270 +155%
Far Cry 5	41 −144%	100−105 +144%
Fortnite	60 −150%	150−160 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 −147%	180−190 +147%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 −145%	120−130 +145%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 −154%	170−180 +154%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −150%	95−100 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	41 −144%	100−105 +144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	38 −150%	95−100 +150%
Valorant	130−140 −157%	350−400 +157%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 −157%	190−200 +157%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −158%	85−90 +158%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −157%	95−100 +157%
Dota 2	98 −155%	250−260 +155%
Far Cry 5	35 −157%	90−95 +157%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 −147%	180−190 +147%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 −145%	120−130 +145%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	29 −141%	70−75 +141%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	25 −140%	60−65 +140%
Valorant	130−140 −157%	350−400 +157%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

45
−144%

110−120

+144%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	120−130 −133%	300−310 +133%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 −150%	75−80 +150%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 −138%	400−450 +138%
Valorant	170−180 −133%	400−450 +133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −140%	120−130 +140%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Far Cry 5	21 −138%	50−55 +138%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −150%	110−120 +150%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 −150%	80−85 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −150%	70−75 +150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

−150%

60−65
+150%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	14−16 −150%	35−40 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 −150%	80−85 +150%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −150%	35−40 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 −131%	30−33 +131%
Valorant	95−100 −153%	250−260 +153%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −150%	65−70 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Dota 2	60−65 −142%	150−160 +142%
Far Cry 5	9 −133%	21−24 +133%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −142%	75−80 +142%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7 −157%	18−20 +157%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

−140%

24−27
+140%

This is how Quadro P2000 and A10G compete in popular games:

A10G is 150% faster in 1080p
A10G is 150% faster in 1440p
A10G is 150% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.86	48.59
Recency	6 February 2017	12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	12 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	150 Watt

Quadro P2000 has 100% lower power consumption.

A10G, on the other hand, has a 157.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 140% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The A10G is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P2000 in performance tests.