NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 are two very different graphics cards, separated by five years of architecture evolution and designed for entirely different markets. The GTX 560 SE is a cut-down Fermi-based gaming card from 2012, while the Quadro P2000 is a Pascal-based professional workstation card from 2017. The database shows a single head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, but the broader specifications reveal a massive generational gap in capability, efficiency, and feature support. This analysis uses only the recorded data to compare them.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has a much higher average benchmark score of 6049, while the GeForce GTX 560 SE has an average score of 7171. However, the Quadro's average is pulled down by its many Passmark tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D), whereas the GTX 560 SE only has one recorded OpenCL score. In the direct OpenCL comparison, the Quadro P2000 scores 20125 versus the GTX 560 SE's 7171, a 64.4% difference.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: The GTX 560 SE sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P2000 sits at the 35th percentile. Despite the Quadro being much faster in absolute OpenCL terms, its lower percentile reflects that its average score across all its benchmark tests is lower than the GTX 560 SE's single score.

Q: What are the memory specifications?

A: The GTX 560 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 91.87 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, yielding 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has five times the capacity and 52.5% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card requires more power?

A: The GTX 560 SE has a TDP of 150 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors plus a 450 W suggested power supply. The Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W, requires no power connectors, and has a 250 W suggested power supply. The Quadro uses half the power.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The GTX 560 SE is built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The Quadro P2000 uses a 16 nm process, packing 4,400 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die. The Quadro has a transistor density of 22.0M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm² for the GTX 560 SE.

Q: Which card supports newer APIs?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 560 SE supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The Quadro also has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a on the GTX 560 SE.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent completely different architectural generations. The GTX 560 SE uses the GF114 chip based on Fermi 2.0, a 40 nm design from TSMC with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip based on Pascal, a 16 nm design that squeezes 4,400 million transistors into just 200 mm². This is a density improvement from 5.9M transistors per mm² to 22.0M per mm², a nearly fourfold increase in packing efficiency.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The GTX 560 SE has 288 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The Quadro P2000 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. That is 736 more shading units, 16 more TMUs, and 16 more ROPs on the Quadro. The raw throughput numbers confirm the gap: the GTX 560 SE delivers 847.9 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS, which is roughly 3.6 times higher.

Clock speeds also differ. The GTX 560 SE has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 957 MHz (3.8 Gbps effective). The Quadro P2000 has a base clock of 1076 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz, with memory at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The pixel rate on the GTX 560 SE is 8.832 GPixel/s, while the Quadro P2000 hits 59.20 GPixel/s, a massive difference. Texture rates are 35.33 GTexel/s versus 94.72 GTexel/s, respectively.

The Quadro P2000 also has features the GTX 560 SE lacks entirely: Vulkan 1.4 API support and DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the GTX 560 SE's DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 560 SE is a dual-slot card with two 6-pin power connectors, while the Quadro P2000 is a single-slot card with no auxiliary power. The bus interface also advances from PCIe 2.0 x16 on the GTX 560 SE to PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Quadro P2000.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20125, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE scores 7171. The Quadro P2000 wins with a delta of 64.4%, meaning the GTX 560 SE is 64.4% behind. This is a dominant victory for the Quadro, reflecting its newer architecture, higher shader count, and faster memory.

To put that in context, the GTX 560 SE's nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170, essentially tied), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7157, 0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203, 0.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7222, 0.7% ahead). So the GTX 560 SE is effectively a mid-pack card from its era, sitting within 1% of several other GPUs in the database.

The Quadro P2000's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6077, 0.5% behind), the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, 0.5% behind), the AMD Radeon 760M (6019, 0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, 0.8% ahead). The Quadro's average score of 6049 places it in a cluster of modern entry-level GPUs. However, its OpenCL score of 20125 is far above that average, driven by the fact that its Passmark DirectX tests (scores of 34, 47, 28, and 124 for DirectX 10, 11, 12, and 9 respectively) are very low, while its Passmark G3D score is 6956 and its GPU compute score is 2933.

In the only direct comparison available, the Quadro P2000 wins decisively. The GTX 560 SE has zero wins in the head-to-head data, while the Quadro P2000 has one. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the Quadro is clearly superior. The GTX 560 SE's single benchmark result of 7171 is less than half of the Quadro's 20125.

The Verdict

The data points to one unambiguous conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the far more capable card in every measurable way. It has more memory (5 GB versus 1 GB), more bandwidth (140.2 GB/s versus 91.87 GB/s), more shading units (1024 versus 288), higher pixel and texture rates, and a much higher FP32 throughput (3.031 TFLOPS versus 847.9 GFLOPS). Its OpenCL score is 64.4% higher than the GTX 560 SE, and its architecture is five years newer, built on a more advanced 16 nm process.

The GTX 560 SE does hold one statistical edge: its average benchmark score of 7171 is higher than the Quadro's 6049, and its percentile rank of 39 beats the Quadro's 35. But this is misleading, as the GTX 560 SE has only a single OpenCL benchmark, while the Quadro has nine tests, including several low-scoring Passmark DirectX entries that drag down its average. Looking at the actual compute performance, the Quadro is overwhelmingly faster.

For a user choosing between these two, the Quadro P2000 is the obvious pick for any modern workload. It supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, runs on a single slot with no power connectors, and consumes only 75 W versus 150 W. The GTX 560 SE is end-of-life, uses an older PCIe 2.0 interface, and offers only 1 GB of memory, which is insufficient for most current applications. The only reason to pick the GTX 560 SE would be legacy driver support for very old software, but the performance gap is so large that even that reason is weak.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The GTX 560 SE uses the GF114 chip on a 40 nm process, while the Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip on a 16 nm process. Transistor counts are 1,950 million versus 4,400 million, with die sizes of 332 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density jumps from 5.9M per mm² to 22.0M per mm².

Memory differs substantially: 1024 MB versus 5 GB, both GDDR5, but with bus widths of 192 bit versus 160 bit. The GTX 560 SE has 91.87 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro P2000 has 140.2 GB/s. The GTX 560 SE has no base or boost clock recorded, but its memory clock is 957 MHz (3.8 Gbps effective). The Quadro P2000 has a base clock of 1076 MHz, boost of 1480 MHz, and memory clock of 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Compute resources: 288 shading units versus 1024, 48 TMUs versus 64, 24 ROPs versus 40. Pixel rate is 8.832 GPixel/s versus 59.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 35.33 GTexel/s versus 94.72 GTexel/s. FP32 is 847.9 GFLOPS versus 3.031 TFLOPS. The Quadro also lists FP16 at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GTX 560 SE has no FP16 figure.

Power and physical specs: TDP is 150 W versus 75 W, with the GTX 560 SE requiring two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W PSU, while the Quadro needs none and a 250 W PSU. The GTX 560 SE is dual-slot, 210 mm long; the Quadro is single-slot, 196 mm long and 111 mm tall. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

API support: DirectX 12 (11_0) versus DirectX 12 (12_1), both OpenGL 4.6, but only the Quadro has Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 560 SE's predecessor is GeForce 400, its successor GeForce 600, and it launched in February 2012. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell, its successor Quadro Volta, and it launched in February 2017.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins in every compute-heavy scenario. Its OpenCL score of 20125 crushes the GTX 560 SE's 7171. For tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific computing, or any OpenCL-based workload, the Quadro is the only reasonable choice. Its 5 GB memory capacity allows it to handle larger datasets and textures than the GTX 560 SE's 1 GB. The Quadro also wins on power efficiency, using 75 W versus 150 W, and on connectivity, with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs supporting modern monitors.

The GTX 560 SE has no clear winning category in the recorded data. Its only advantages are a higher average benchmark score (7171 versus 6049) and a higher percentile rank (39 versus 35), but these are artifacts of the Quadro having more benchmark tests, several of which score very low. In the Passmark DirectX tests, the Quadro scores 34 for DirectX 10, 47 for DirectX 11, 28 for DirectX 12, and 124 for DirectX 9. These are low scores, but they do not reflect the Quadro's actual compute capability as shown in OpenCL.

For legacy gaming from 2012, the GTX 560 SE might run older titles that do not need modern API support, but the Quadro P2000 would still run them faster. The GTX 560 SE's 192-bit bus and 288 shaders were respectable in its day, but the Pascal architecture's efficiency gains make the Quadro faster even at a lower TDP.

In professional use, the Quadro P2000 is designed for workstation tasks, and its specifications reflect that: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, single-slot cooling, no power connectors, and a 250 W PSU requirement make it easy to install in any workstation. The GTX 560 SE, with its dual-slot cooler and two 6-pin connectors, is a gaming card from an earlier era. Any user building a system today should choose the Quadro P2000 without hesitation, as the data shows a 64.4% performance gap in OpenCL and a generational leap in every other metric.