Quadro NVS 135M vs Quadro P2000

Place in the ranking	299	1438
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.77	no data
Power efficiency	17.36	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 18.91
+14446%

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	58	-0−1
1440p	20	-0−1
4K	17	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.09	no data
1440p	29.25	no data
4K	34.41	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +278%	9−10 −278%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +278%	9−10 −278%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +1480%	5−6 −1480%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55	0−1
Metro Exodus	50−55	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +1000%	4−5 −1000%
Valorant	75−80	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +278%	9−10 −278%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Dota 2	34	0−1
Far Cry 5	72 +1100%	6−7 −1100%
Fortnite	100−110	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +1480%	5−6 −1480%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70	0−1
Metro Exodus	50−55	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	137 +2640%	5−6 −2640%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +1000%	4−5 −1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +1375%	4−5 −1375%
Valorant	75−80	0−1
World of Tanks	220−230 +2140%	10−11 −2140%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +278%	9−10 −278%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Dota 2	98	0−1
Far Cry 5	65−70 +983%	6−7 −983%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +1480%	5−6 −1480%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40 +700%	5−6 −700%
Valorant	75−80	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	30−33	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +16700%	1−2 −16700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18	0−1
World of Tanks	120−130	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	16−18	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +1150%	4−5 −1150%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	30−33	0−1
Metro Exodus	40−45	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +550%	4−5 −550%
Valorant	45−50 +1100%	4−5 −1100%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +157%	7−8 −157%
Dota 2	30−35 +113%	14−16 −113%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +113%	14−16 −113%
Metro Exodus	14−16	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	39	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +113%	14−16 −113%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +157%	7−8 −157%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Dota 2	30−35 +113%	14−16 −113%
Far Cry 5	24−27	0−1
Fortnite	21−24	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	27−30	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	14−16	0−1
Valorant	21−24	0−1

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 16700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P2000 surpassed NVS 135M in all 31 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.91	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 14446.2% 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.