Quadro RTX 6000 vs Quadro P2000

Place in the ranking	297	67
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.55	5.51
Power efficiency	17.36	12.88
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GP106	TU102
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$585	$6,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P2000 has 73% better value for money than RTX 6000.

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	4608
Core clock speed	1076 MHz	1440 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	1770 MHz
Number of transistors	4,400 million	18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	94.72	509.8
Floating-point processing power	3.031 TFLOPS	16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs	40	96
TMUs	64	288
Tensor Cores	no data	576
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 3.0 x16
Length	201 mm	267 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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	24 GB
Memory bus width	160 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	140.2 GB/s	672.0 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

4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	6.1	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.

Quadro P2000 18.91

RTX 6000 48.66
+157%

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

RTX 6000 18707
+157%

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 22874

RTX 6000 148542
+549%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro P2000 23532

RTX 6000 126987
+440%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro P2000 21668

RTX 6000 159550
+636%

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 −141%	140−150 +141%
1440p	20 −150%	50−55 +150%
4K	17 −135%	40−45 +135%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.09 +346%	44.99 −346%
1440p	29.25 +331%	125.98 −331%
4K	34.41 +358%	157.48 −358%

Quadro P2000 has 346% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Quadro P2000 has 331% lower cost per frame in 1440p
Quadro P2000 has 358% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −150%	85−90 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −157%	95−100 +157%
Elden Ring	60−65 −150%	150−160 +150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −150%	150−160 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −150%	85−90 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −157%	95−100 +157%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −153%	200−210 +153%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −155%	130−140 +155%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −150%	110−120 +150%
Valorant	75−80 −150%	190−200 +150%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −150%	150−160 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −150%	85−90 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −157%	95−100 +157%
Dota 2	34 −150%	85−90 +150%
Elden Ring	60−65 −150%	150−160 +150%
Far Cry 5	72 −150%	180−190 +150%
Fortnite	100−110 −148%	250−260 +148%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −153%	200−210 +153%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 −154%	170−180 +154%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −155%	130−140 +155%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	137 −155%	350−400 +155%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −150%	110−120 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −154%	150−160 +154%
Valorant	75−80 −150%	190−200 +150%
World of Tanks	220−230 −146%	550−600 +146%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −150%	150−160 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −150%	85−90 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −157%	95−100 +157%
Dota 2	98 −155%	250−260 +155%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −150%	160−170 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −153%	200−210 +153%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40 −150%	100−105 +150%
Valorant	75−80 −150%	190−200 +150%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 −141%	70−75 +141%
Elden Ring	30−35 −142%	75−80 +142%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 −150%	75−80 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 −138%	400−450 +138%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −135%	40−45 +135%
World of Tanks	120−130 −133%	300−310 +133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −150%	95−100 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −140%	120−130 +140%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −150%	120−130 +150%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −156%	110−120 +156%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −140%	60−65 +140%
Valorant	45−50 −150%	120−130 +150%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Dota 2	30−35 −150%	80−85 +150%
Elden Ring	14−16 −150%	35−40 +150%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 −150%	80−85 +150%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −150%	35−40 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	39 −156%	100−105 +156%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −150%	80−85 +150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −137%	45−50 +137%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Dota 2	30−35 −150%	80−85 +150%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −150%	60−65 +150%
Fortnite	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −150%	70−75 +150%
Valorant	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%

This is how Quadro P2000 and RTX 6000 compete in popular games:

RTX 6000 is 141% faster in 1080p
RTX 6000 is 150% faster in 1440p
RTX 6000 is 135% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.91	48.66
Recency	6 February 2017	13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	24 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	260 Watt

Quadro P2000 has 246.7% lower power consumption.

RTX 6000, on the other hand, has a 157.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 380% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 33.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P2000 in performance tests.

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