Quadro NVS 135M vs Quadro P2000

Place in the ranking	295	1434
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.54	no data
Power efficiency	17.26	0.89
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GP106	G86
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	9 May 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$585	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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	16
Core clock speed	1076 MHz	400 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,400 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	94.72	3.200
Floating-point processing power	3.031 TFLOPS	0.0256 TFLOPS
ROPs	40	4
TMUs	64	8

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 2.0 x16
Length	201 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	160 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	594 MHz
Memory bandwidth	140.2 GB/s	9.504 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 Connectors

4x DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	6.1	1.1

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 P2000 18.87
+14415%

NVS 135M 0.13

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
+14436%

NVS 135M 50

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	-0−1
1440p	22	-0−1
4K	16	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.45	no data
1440p	26.59	no data
4K	36.56	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−33
+1400%

2−3

−1400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35	0−1
Battlefield 5	60−65	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Far Cry 5	42	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	110−120	0−1
Hitman 3	35−40 +825%	4−5 −825%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +1050%	8−9 −1050%
Metro Exodus	65−70	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	77 +1825%	4−5 −1825%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +214%	27−30 −214%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35	0−1
Battlefield 5	60−65	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Far Cry 5	33	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	110−120	0−1
Hitman 3	35−40 +825%	4−5 −825%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +1050%	8−9 −1050%
Metro Exodus	65−70	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +378%	9−10 −378%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +214%	27−30 −214%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Far Cry 5	26	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	110−120	0−1
Hitman 3	35−40 +825%	4−5 −825%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +1050%	8−9 −1050%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	25 +178%	9−10 −178%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +214%	27−30 −214%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12	0−1
Far Cry 5	14	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	100−110	0−1
Hitman 3	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Metro Exodus	35−40	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120	0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35
+1450%

2−3

−1450%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16	0−1
Hitman 3	14−16	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100	0−1
Metro Exodus	20−22	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Far Cry 5	7	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	24−27	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18
+750%

2−3

−750%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 1825% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P2000 surpassed NVS 135M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.87	0.13
Recency	6 February 2017	9 May 2007
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	16 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	10 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 14415.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 135M, on the other hand, has 650% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 135M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation card while Quadro NVS 135M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.