RTX A4500 vs Quadro T2000 Mobile

Place in performance ranking	252	35
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.88	5.28
Architecture	Turing (2018−2021)	Ampere (2020−2022)
GPU code name	N19P-Q3	GA102
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)	23 November 2021 (2 years ago)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX A4500 has 8% better value for money than T2000 Mobile.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1024	7168
Core clock speed	1575 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1785 MHz	1650 MHz
Number of transistors	4,700 million	28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	60 Watt	200 Watt
Texture fill rate	114.2	369.6

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro T2000 Mobile and RTX A4500 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	4 GB	20 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	320 Bit
Memory clock speed	8000 MHz	16 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	128.0 GB/s	640.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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

No outputs

4x DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.5	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
CUDA	7.5	8.6

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

T2000 Mobile 20.69

RTX A4500 56.45
+173%

RTX A4500 outperforms Quadro T2000 Mobile by 173% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

T2000 Mobile 7985

RTX A4500 21789
+173%

RTX A4500 outperforms Quadro T2000 Mobile by 173% in Passmark.

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

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35

−173%

90−95
+173%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 −161%	120−130 +161%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 −171%	95−100 +171%
Battlefield 5	65−70 −165%	180−190 +165%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −162%	110−120 +162%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −173%	90−95 +173%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −171%	130−140 +171%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 −173%	150−160 +173%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 −136%	300−310 +136%
Hitman 3	40−45 −168%	110−120 +168%
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100 −173%	270−280 +173%
Metro Exodus	70−75 −168%	190−200 +168%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 −173%	150−160 +173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −161%	180−190 +161%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 −169%	250−260 +169%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 −161%	120−130 +161%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 −171%	95−100 +171%
Battlefield 5	65−70 −165%	180−190 +165%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −162%	110−120 +162%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −173%	90−95 +173%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −171%	130−140 +171%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 −173%	150−160 +173%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 −136%	300−310 +136%
Hitman 3	40−45 −168%	110−120 +168%
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100 −173%	270−280 +173%
Metro Exodus	70−75 −168%	190−200 +168%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 −173%	150−160 +173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −161%	180−190 +161%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −161%	120−130 +161%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 −169%	250−260 +169%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 −161%	120−130 +161%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 −171%	95−100 +171%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −162%	110−120 +162%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −173%	90−95 +173%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −171%	130−140 +171%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 −136%	300−310 +136%
Hitman 3	40−45 −168%	110−120 +168%
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100 −173%	270−280 +173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −161%	180−190 +161%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −161%	120−130 +161%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 −169%	250−260 +169%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

55−60
−173%

150−160

+173%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −150%	100−105 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 −166%	85−90 +166%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −162%	55−60 +162%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 −163%	50−55 +163%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 −161%	60−65 +161%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −171%	65−70 +171%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −159%	300−310 +159%
Hitman 3	24−27 −171%	65−70 +171%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 −162%	110−120 +162%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −156%	100−105 +156%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −156%	110−120 +156%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −171%	65−70 +171%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 −148%	300−310 +148%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

−165%

90−95
+165%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Hitman 3	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 −171%	290−300 +171%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −173%	60−65 +173%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −162%	55−60 +162%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 −173%	30−33 +173%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −173%	30−33 +173%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −173%	30−33 +173%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −168%	75−80 +168%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 −171%	65−70 +171%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −167%	24−27 +167%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

−150%

45−50
+150%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	20.69	56.45
Recency	27 May 2019	23 November 2021
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	20 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	60 Watt	200 Watt

T2000 Mobile has 233.3% lower power consumption.

RTX A4500, on the other hand, has a 172.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 400% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 50% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A4500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T2000 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro T2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while RTX A4500 is a workstation one.

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