NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 dominates this matchup in every recorded benchmark, and the gap is not close. The database contains one head-to-head result, Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro P2000 scores 20125 against the GeForce GT 1010's 6698. That is a crushing margin for the workstation card, and it is consistent with the underlying silicon: the P2000 brings 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units to a contest where the GT 1010 fields 256, 16, and 8 respectively. Both cards are Pascal-based parts from NVIDIA and both are now end-of-life, but they were built for entirely different jobs, and the data reflects that split.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a landslide: 20125 for the Quadro P2000 versus 6698 for the GT 1010. OpenCL measures general compute throughput, and a gap of this size tells a clear story. The P2000's FP32 capability stands at 3.031 TFLOPS while the GT 1010 delivers 751.6 GFLOPS, so the OpenCL result simply mirrors the raw compute hardware each card carries. Four times the shading units, a wider memory subsystem, and a larger die produce a compute score roughly in line with those hardware ratios.

The broader benchmark records reinforce the picture. The Quadro P2000 posts a PassMark G3D score of 6956 and a GPU compute score of 2933, alongside individual PassMark DirectX results of 124 for DirectX 9, 47 for DirectX 11, 34 for DirectX 10, and 28 for DirectX 12, plus a Geekbench Vulkan score of 23566 and a 2D graphics score of 626. The GT 1010's database entry carries only the single Geekbench OpenCL result of 6698, so on the averaged benchmark score the two cards land closer than the hardware would suggest: 6698 for the GT 1010 against 6049 for the P2000. That average is misleading, though, because the P2000's figure is pulled down by its low DirectX subscores, while the GT 1010's number rests entirely on one OpenCL run. In the one test where both cards were measured on identical terms, the P2000 wins by an enormous margin, and the head-to-head tally in the database reads one win for the P2000 and zero for the GT 1010.

Context from the rivals list sharpens the contrast. The GT 1010 sits in a cluster of aging AMD mobile parts: it sits between the Radeon R7 M370 at 6764 and the R7 M460 at 6612, marginally ahead of the HD 7730M at 6581 and slightly behind the FirePro M5100 at 6830. The P2000, by average score, keeps company with the GeForce MX230 at 6077, the RTX A400 at 6078, the Radeon 760M at 6019, and the Radeon RX 6400 at 6001, a far more modern neighborhood. Both cards sit in the mid-thirties percentile against all GPUs in the database, the GT 1010 at the 38th percentile and the P2000 at the 35th, but the percentiles are computed over different score mixes and should not be read as parity.

The Verdict

For anyone choosing between these two cards on performance grounds, the Quadro P2000 is the pick, full stop. It wins the only shared benchmark decisively, it holds vastly higher pixel rate at 59.20 GPixel/s versus 11.74 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 94.72 GTexel/s dwarfs the GT 1010's 23.49 GTexel/s. It also offers 5 GB of memory on a 160-bit bus delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth, against 2 GB on a 64-bit bus at 48.06 GB/s. Workloads that need memory headroom, compute throughput, or multi-display output all favor the P2000.

The GT 1010's case rests on efficiency and physical footprint, not speed. Its TDP is 30 W against the P2000's 75 W, both cards draw power exclusively from the slot with no auxiliary connectors, and the GT 1010 stretches just 147 mm long versus 196 mm for the P2000. The GT 1010 also runs on a mere four PCIe lanes (PCIe 3.0 x4), while the P2000 uses a full x16 link. If the task is basic display output in a compact, low-power system and nothing more, the GT 1010 suffices. If the task involves any measurable GPU workload, it does not.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs belong to NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, but they are different silicon from different fabs. The GT 1010 uses the GP108 chip, fabbed by Samsung on a 14 nm process, packing 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die for a density of 24.3M transistors per mm². The Quadro P2000 uses the much larger GP106 chip, fabbed by TSMC on a 16 nm process, with 4,400 million transistors across 200 mm² at 22.0M per mm². The smaller Samsung node gives the GT 1010 a slight density edge, but the P2000's die is nearly triple the area and carries well over twice the transistors, which is where its performance advantage originates.

Generationally, the GT 1010 belongs to the GeForce 10 family, sitting between the GeForce 900 predecessor and the GeForce 20 successor, and it shipped on January 12, 2021, remarkably late for Pascal silicon. The P2000 belongs to the Quadro Pascal generation, released February 5, 2017, between Quadro Maxwell and Quadro Volta. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores; ray tracing and AI acceleration hardware simply did not exist in this generation. Both support DirectX 12 feature level 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The P2000 does expose FP16 operation at 47.36 GFLOPS with a steep 1:64 rate, a figure the GT 1010's record does not include at all.

Specification Differences

The differences run across nearly every specification column. Shading units: 256 for the GT 1010 against 1024 for the P2000. TMUs: 16 against 64. ROPs: 8 against 40. Clocks tell a more nuanced story, with the GT 1010 actually basing higher at 1228 MHz versus 1076 MHz, though the P2000 boosts higher at 1480 MHz against 1468 MHz. Memory: both use GDDR5, but the GT 1010 runs 2 GB on a 64-bit bus at 6 Gbps effective for 48.06 GB/s, while the P2000 runs 5 GB on a 160-bit bus at 7 Gbps effective for 140.2 GB/s.

Power and physical specs diverge as well. The GT 1010 has a 30 W TDP and a 200 W suggested PSU; the P2000 has a 75 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU; both are single-slot cards with no power connectors. Outputs differ sharply: the GT 1010 offers one DVI and one mini-HDMI 2.0 port, while the P2000 provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a clear multi-monitor workstation configuration. The P2000 measures 196 mm long and 111 mm tall; the GT 1010 is documented at 147 mm long with no recorded height.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in benchmarks?

A: The Quadro P2000, decisively. It scores 20125 in Geekbench OpenCL against the GT 1010's 6698 in the same test.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: No. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores; both are Pascal-generation designs predating that hardware.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 1010 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s.

Q: Which card needs less power?

A: The GT 1010, with a 30 W TDP versus 75 W for the P2000. Neither requires an auxiliary power connector.

Q: How many displays can each card drive?

A: The P2000 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The GT 1010 offers one DVI and one mini-HDMI 2.0 output.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The GT 1010 launched in January 2021, the P2000 in February 2017.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins everywhere performance matters. Compute workloads: 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 versus 751.6 GFLOPS, and a 20125 OpenCL score. Gaming-class graphics throughput: 6956 in PassMark G3D with no comparable GT 1010 result on record. Memory-bound tasks: 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth and 5 GB of capacity versus 48.06 GB/s and 2 GB. Texture-heavy work: 94.72 GTexel/s against 23.49 GTexel/s. Pixel throughput: 59.20 GPixel/s against 11.74 GPixel/s. Multi-monitor setups: four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs against two ports of mixed types. Full-bandwidth system connectivity: PCIe 3.0 x16 against x4.

The GT 1010 wins on restraint. It draws just 30 W, fits a shorter 147 mm board, and still delivers a higher base clock at 1228 MHz. Its 6698 OpenCL score places it ahead of cards like the Radeon HD 7730M and R7 M460 in its own tier, respectable company for such small silicon. As a basic display adapter for a compact or power-limited system, it is adequate. As anything else, the recorded data points in one direction only: toward the Quadro P2000.