Quadro 2000D vs Radeon PRO WX 2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 and Quadro 2000D, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
PRO WX 2100 outperforms 2000D by an impressive 91% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 652 | 840 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.53 | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 9.39 | 2.78 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | GF106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 5 October 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
PRO WX 2100 has 2106% better value for money than Quadro 2000D.
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 | 512 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 62 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 20.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.248 TFLOPS | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
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 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 178 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 41.6 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 | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 2x DVI |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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.
- Passmark
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.
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 - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+93.3%
|
30−33
−93.3%
|
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+97.5%
|
40−45
−97.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+93.3%
|
30−33
−93.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+93.3%
|
30−33
−93.3%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.16 | 2.18 |
| Recency | 4 June 2017 | 5 October 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 62 Watt |
PRO WX 2100 has a 90.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 77.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000D in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
