NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a single recorded performance test for each GPU, and they do not share a common workload. The GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 was measured in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12), scoring 4334.5 points. The Quadro 2000 was measured in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 3898 points. Because these are different test suites, a direct numerical comparison of their scores is not meaningful. However, context from the database's nearest rival lists provides useful positioning. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4335. Its closest rivals in the database are the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (avg 4360, 0.6% higher), the AMD FirePro W2100 (avg 4295, 0.9% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (avg 4388, 1.2% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (avg 4282, 1.2% lower). This places the RTX 4070 GDDR6 in a cluster where its performance is within roughly 1% of very old, low-end mobile and entry-level desktop parts. That is a striking result, indicating that the 3DMark Steel Nomad score for this GPU is far below what its specification sheet would suggest.

The Quadro 2000, meanwhile, sits at the 23rd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 3898. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (avg 3883, 0.4% lower), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (avg 3919, 0.5% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (avg 3930, 0.8% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (avg 3953, 1.4% higher). Again, the Quadro 2000 is clustered within 1.5% of its nearest recorded rivals, which are all integrated or very low-end discrete GPUs. The two cards' percentile ranks are nearly identical (25 vs 23), but the absolute test scores are not directly comparable. The data does not provide a head-to-head benchmark result, so the only conclusion is that both GPUs appear near the bottom of the database's distribution, with the RTX 4070 GDDR6's recorded score being slightly higher in its own test than the Quadro 2000's score in its own test. No wins can be declared for either side based on shared workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is immense, spanning nearly 14 years of NVIDIA design. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 uses the AD104 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip on the Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect this generational leap: the AD104 packs 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a density of 121.8 million transistors per mm². The GF106 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, for a density of 4.9 million per mm². In raw terms, the RTX 4070 GDDR6 has roughly 30 times more transistors, but its die is only about 24% larger, demonstrating the massive density advantage of the newer process.

The compute core counts differ by an order of magnitude. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 has 5888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 also carries 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores, neither of which exists on the Fermi-based Quadro 2000. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the RTX 4070 GDDR6 has a base clock of 1920 MHz and a boost clock of 2475 MHz, while the Quadro 2000 has no recorded base or boost clock. Memory clocks differ as well: the RTX 4070 GDDR6 runs its GDDR6 at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 2000 runs its GDDR5 at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). The API support also diverges: the RTX 4070 GDDR6 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 GDDR6 wins decisively in every specification category where a comparison is possible. Its shading unit count is over 30 times higher, its TMU count is over 5 times higher, and its ROP count is 4 times higher. Its pixel rate is 158.4 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000, a 31.7 times advantage. Its texture rate is 455.4 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s, a 22.8 times advantage. Its FP32 compute is 29.15 TFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS, a 60.7 times advantage. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 also has ray tracing and tensor cores, which the Quadro 2000 lacks entirely. Memory capacity is 12 GB versus 1024 MB, memory bandwidth is 480.0 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s, and the bus width is 192 bit versus 128 bit. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro 2000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

The Quadro 2000 wins only in specific physical and power characteristics that are not performance advantages. It is a single-slot card versus the RTX 4070 GDDR6's dual-slot design. It requires no power connectors, while the RTX 4070 GDDR6 needs a 16-pin connector. Its TDP is 62 W versus 200 W, and its suggested PSU is 250 W versus 550 W. Its dimensions are smaller in length (178 mm or 7 inches versus 240 mm or 9.4 inches) and similar in height (111 mm or 4.4 inches versus 110 mm or 4.3 inches). The Quadro 2000 also has a different display output set: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, versus the RTX 4070 GDDR6's 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. These are not wins in capability, but they are wins in physical footprint and power draw.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 uses the AD104 chip, Ada Lovelace architecture, and a 5 nm process, while the Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip, Fermi architecture, and a 40 nm process. Transistor count is 35,800 million versus 1,170 million; die size is 294 mm² versus 238 mm²; transistor density is 121.8M per mm² versus 4.9M per mm². The RTX 4070 GDDR6 has a base clock of 1920 MHz and a boost clock of 2475 MHz; the Quadro 2000 has neither. Memory is 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus versus 1024 MB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with bandwidth of 480.0 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s. Shading units are 5888 versus 192, TMUs are 184 versus 32, ROPs are 64 versus 16. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 has 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores; the Quadro 2000 has none. Pixel rate is 158.4 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s; texture rate is 455.4 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s; FP32 is 29.15 TFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 supports FP16 at 29.15 TFLOPS (1:1); the Quadro 2000 has no FP16 record. TDP is 200 W versus 62 W; slot width is dual-slot versus single-slot; power connectors are 1x 16-pin versus none; suggested PSU is 550 W versus 250 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort. API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6 on both, Vulkan 1.4 versus none. Dimensions: the RTX 4070 GDDR6 is 240 mm long, 110 mm high, 40 mm wide; the Quadro 2000 is 178 mm long, 111 mm high, with no recorded width. Release dates are 2024-08-19 versus 2010-12-23. Both are end-of-life production status, and both have a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 has 35,800 million transistors, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 1,170 million transistors.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: The RTX 4070 GDDR6 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, while the Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000 support ray tracing?

A: No, the Quadro 2000 has no ray tracing cores. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 has 46 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance difference?

A: The RTX 4070 GDDR6 delivers 29.15 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro 2000 delivers 480.0 GFLOPS, making the RTX 4070 GDDR6 over 60 times faster in this metric.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W and requires no power connectors, while the RTX 4070 GDDR6 has a TDP of 200 W and requires a 16-pin power connector.

Q: What APIs does each card support?

A: The RTX 4070 GDDR6 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life production status.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the RTX 4070 GDDR6 is a vastly more capable GPU in nearly every measurable specification. Its compute throughput, memory bandwidth, pixel and texture rates, and core counts dwarf the Quadro 2000's figures by factors ranging from 4 to over 60. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 also brings modern features such as ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and Vulkan support that the Quadro 2000 simply does not have. Any workload that relies on raw shading, texturing, rasterization, or memory bandwidth will favor the RTX 4070 GDDR6 overwhelmingly. The benchmark percentile ranks are close (25th versus 23rd), but the recorded tests are not directly comparable, and the specification deltas indicate the RTX 4070 GDDR6's 3DMark Steel Nomad score is anomalous relative to its hardware, not a true reflection of its capability.

The Quadro 2000's advantages are limited to physical and power characteristics. It is single-slot, shorter in length, draws 62 W versus 200 W, requires no external power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W versus 550 W. For a system with severe space constraints or a very low power budget, the Quadro 2000 could be a fit, but its performance ceiling is minimal by modern standards. It also has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, identical to the RTX 4070 GDDR6's launch MSRP, which makes its much lower performance hard to justify in any performance-oriented purchase decision.

Who should pick which? Anyone building a system for gaming, 3D rendering, video encoding, or machine learning workloads should choose the RTX 4070 GDDR6 without hesitation, based on its massive lead in compute, memory, and feature support. The Quadro 2000 is only defensible for legacy compatibility scenarios where its DVI output, single-slot footprint, and 62 W power draw are absolute requirements, and where performance expectations are minimal. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 is the recommended choice for virtually all other use cases.