GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 in the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 against the GTX 750's 9,315. That is a delta of 53.7% in favor of the Quadro, meaning the GTX 750 trails by more than half in raw compute throughput. The margin is even wider in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro P2000 posts 23,566 versus 8,078 for the GTX 750, a 65.7% gap. The GTX 750 loses both head-to-head matchups, and the database records zero wins for the GeForce card against the Quadro.

The magnitude of these deltas is worth emphasizing. A 65.7% deficit in Vulkan indicates that the Quadro P2000 delivers nearly three times the performance in that API workload. The OpenCL result, while slightly closer, still shows the Quadro at more than double the GTX 750's score. These are not marginal differences; they represent a generational leap in compute capability that shows up consistently across different graphics APIs.

Looking at broader database percentiles, the GTX 750 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P2000 lands at the 35th percentile. The average benchmark score tells a different story from the head-to-head tests: the GTX 750 averages 7,222 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Quadro P2000 averages 6,049. This discrepancy arises because the two cards were tested under different benchmark suites. The GTX 750's average is built from Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan results, while the Quadro P2000's average includes a much wider set of tests, including several Passmark DirectX workloads where it scores very low (34 in DirectX 10, 47 in DirectX 11, 28 in DirectX 12). Those low DirectX scores drag down the Quadro's overall average despite its dominance in compute-oriented tests.

The nearest rivals for each card further contextualize their standing. The GTX 750's closest competitors are the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (0.7% ahead), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (0.9% ahead). The Quadro P2000's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (0.5% behind), the NVIDIA RTX A400 (0.5% behind), the AMD Radeon 760M (0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (0.8% ahead). These clusters place both cards in similar overall performance territory, but the head-to-head data reveals that the Quadro P2000 is the stronger compute part when measured directly against the GTX 750.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins decisively with a score of 20,125 against the GTX 750's 9,315, a 53.7% advantage.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 23,566, while the GTX 750 scores 8,078. The Quadro leads by 65.7%, meaning the GTX 750 manages only about a third of the Quadro's Vulkan performance.

Q: Do the two cards have the same average benchmark score?

A: No. The GTX 750 has a higher average benchmark score of 7,222 across its three recorded tests, while the Quadro P2000 averages 6,049 across nine tests. The Quadro's average is pulled down by very low Passmark DirectX scores, including 34 in DirectX 10, 47 in DirectX 11, and 28 in DirectX 12.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The GTX 750's closest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, which is 0.3% ahead. The Quadro P2000's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, which is 0.5% behind.

Q: Which card has a higher GPU percentile ranking?

A: The GTX 750 ranks at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P2000 ranks at the 35th percentile.

Q: How many head-to-head benchmark wins does each card have?

A: The GTX 750 has zero wins, while the Quadro P2000 has two wins in the recorded head-to-head tests.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 750 wins in no recorded benchmark category where the two cards share a test. In Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro P2000 takes both wins. If the use case is general compute acceleration through OpenCL, the Quadro P2000 is the clear pick based on a 53.7% advantage. If the workload uses Vulkan graphics workloads, the Quadro P2000's 65.1% edge makes it the only rational choice from the data.

The GTX 750 does have a higher average benchmark score of 7,222, which places it above the Quadro P2000's 6,049 average. However, this is a function of test selection rather than raw superiority, since the Quadro P2000's average includes nine tests spanning multiple DirectX versions and 2D workloads. For users whose primary metric is the Geekbench suite, the GTX 750 shows a higher Metal score of 4,274, which the Quadro P2000 does not have a recorded result for. That Metal performance is part of why the GTX 750's average exceeds the Quadro's, but it does not translate into a head-to-head win.

For anyone looking at Passmark tests, the Quadro P2000 has recorded scores across DirectX 9 through 12, plus G2D, G3D, and compute workloads. Its strongest Passmark result is the DirectX 9 score of 124, while its G3D score is 6,956 and its GPU compute score is 2,933. The GTX 750 has no Passmark results in the database, so these workloads cannot be directly compared.

The practical conclusion is that the Quadro P2000 is the stronger card for every shared benchmark. The GTX 750's only statistical advantage is its higher average score, which stems from the limited set of tests applied to it. In direct competition, the Quadro P2000 dominates.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every major specification. The GTX 750 uses a 28 nm process node, while the Quadro P2000 uses a 16 nm node, both from TSMC. The GTX 750 packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the Quadro P2000 has 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Transistor density is 12.6M per mm² for the GTX 750 versus 22.0M per mm² for the Quadro P2000.

Clock speeds differ notably. The GTX 750 has a base clock of 1020 MHz and a boost clock of 1085 MHz, while the Quadro P2000 runs at 1076 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 750 uses 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro P2000 uses 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is a major split, with the GTX 750 offering 1024 MB and the Quadro P2000 offering 5 GB. Both use GDDR5, but the bus width differs: 128 bit on the GTX 750 versus 160 bit on the Quadro P2000. Memory bandwidth is 80.19 GB/s for the GTX 750 and 140.2 GB/s for the Quadro P2000.

The compute pipeline is substantially different. The GTX 750 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro P2000 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Pixel rate is 17.36 GPixel/s for the GTX 750 versus 59.20 GPixel/s for the Quadro. Texture rate is 34.72 GTexel/s versus 94.72 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1,111.0 GFLOPS for the GTX 750 versus 3.031 TFLOPS for the Quadro P2000. The Quadro also has a recorded FP16 rate of 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GTX 750 has no FP16 figure listed.

Power and physical dimensions differ as well. The GTX 750 has a TDP of 55 W, while the Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W. Both are single-slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 750 measures 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length, while the Quadro P2000 measures 196 mm (7.7 inches) with a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). Display outputs are different: the GTX 750 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a, while the Quadro P2000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 750 is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, part of the GeForce 700 generation. The Quadro P2000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP106 chip, part of the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation. These are two distinct microarchitectures from different eras of NVIDIA's roadmap. Maxwell came first, and Pascal is the successor generation, which explains many of the performance differences observed in benchmarks.

The process technology jump from 28 nm to 16 nm at TSMC allows the Quadro P2000 to fit more than double the transistors (4,400 million versus 1,870 million) into a die that is only 52 mm² larger. The transistor density improves from 12.6M per mm² to 22.0M per mm². This density increase, combined with the architectural improvements in Pascal, yields higher clock speeds (1480 MHz boost versus 1085 MHz) and a much larger compute pipeline.

DirectX feature level support differs between the two architectures. The GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level on the Quadro P2000 reflects the newer architecture's ability to handle more advanced rendering features.

The memory subsystem also reflects architectural evolution. The Quadro P2000's 160 bit bus and 5 GB capacity are substantial upgrades over the GTX 750's 128 bit bus and 1024 MB capacity. The effective memory speed of 7 Gbps on the Quadro versus 5 Gbps on the GTX 750 contributes to the 74.8% bandwidth advantage (140.2 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s). The Quadro P2000's FP16 rate of 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) indicates a limited FP16 path, whereas the GTX 750 has no recorded FP16 capability at all.

The release timeline reflects the generational gap: the GTX 750 launched in February 2014, while the Quadro P2000 launched in February 2017. The GTX 750's predecessor is the GeForce 600 series and its successor is the GeForce 900 series. The Quadro P2000's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 in every shared benchmark. The Quadro P2000 wins both head-to-head tests, with a 53.7% margin in OpenCL and a 65.7% margin in Vulkan. Users who need OpenCL or Vulkan performance should choose the Quadro P2000 without hesitation based on these recorded results.

The GTX 750 is not without its own merits. It has a higher average benchmark score of 7,222 compared to the Quadro P2000's 6,049, and it ranks at the 40th percentile of all GPUs versus the Quadro's 35th. It also consumes less power, with a TDP of 55 W versus 75 W, and it is shorter at 145 mm versus 196 mm. For very compact builds or power-sensitive applications where the specific workloads are not the ones tested head-to-head, the GTX 750's profile may be appealing.

The Quadro P2000 offers 5 GB of memory versus 1 GB, a 160 bit bus versus 128 bit, 140.2 GB/s bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s, and nearly three times the FP32 throughput (3.031 TFLOPS versus 1,111.0 GFLOPS). Its four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support more modern display configurations than the GTX 750's dual DVI and mini-HDMI setup. The Quadro P2000 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) against the GTX 750's DirectX 12 (11_0).

The choice depends on the workload. For compute acceleration, modern API support, larger memory buffers, and higher bandwidth, the Quadro P2000 is the clear winner from the recorded data. For users constrained by power, length, or who rely on the specific workloads where the GTX 750's average score is higher, the GTX 750 remains a viable option. But in direct head-to-head competition, the Quadro P2000 wins both tests, and the margins are substantial. The database shows the Quadro P2000 as the superior performer for any workload represented by the shared benchmarks.