NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark suite shared between the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER, so the comparison relies on each card's recorded benchmark average and its position within the broader GPU landscape. The Quadro 2000D posts an average benchmark score of 3930, derived solely from its Geekbench OpenCL result. The RTX 5080 SUPER records an average score of 3075, based on the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. These scores come from different test suites, so they are not directly comparable as absolute numbers. Instead, the meaningful signal lies in how each card ranks against its nearest rivals.

The Quadro 2000D sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around it: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919, a mere 0.3% behind; the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953, 0.6% ahead; the AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956, 0.7% ahead; and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 3957, also 0.7% ahead. In practical terms, the Quadro 2000D is statistically indistinguishable from these peers. The spread among all five cards is less than 1%, meaning the 2000D delivers performance essentially identical to a cluster of low-end mobile and entry desktop parts from its era. This is a card that was competitive with its immediate contemporaries, but those contemporaries were all firmly in the entry-level segment.

The RTX 5080 SUPER, despite its much higher absolute specifications, lands at the 19th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals tell a more scattered story. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 3163, which is 2.8% ahead of the 5080 SUPER. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983, 3.1% behind. The Intel Arc Pro B60 scores 3182, 3.4% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 2967, 3.6% behind. The delta range here is wider, from 3.6% behind to 3.4% ahead, but the absolute scores remain in the 3000-point neighborhood. This places the RTX 5080 SUPER in a strange position: it is a current-generation, active-production card with 24 GB of GDDR7 memory and a 415 W TDP, yet its recorded benchmark score places it alongside much older and far less capable hardware.

The key takeaway from the head-to-head data is that neither card dominates its peer group by a wide margin. The Quadro 2000D is within 0.7% of its closest rivals in either direction, while the RTX 5080 SUPER sits within 3.6% of its nearest competitors. The benchmark scores themselves do not reflect the massive architectural and specification gaps between the two cards, which suggests that the 3DMark Steel Nomad test used for the 5080 SUPER is either a very different workload or the recorded score is not representative of the card's full capability. The database records only one benchmark for each card, so the picture is incomplete, but within the available data, the 5080 SUPER does not show a decisive win over the 2000D in raw score terms.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational and vast. The Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip, built on Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The RTX 5080 SUPER uses the GB203 chip, built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, on a 5 nm process also from TSMC. It contains 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, for a density of 120.6 million per square millimeter. That is a 25-fold increase in transistor density, achieved across roughly a decade and a half of process node shrinks.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, with memory at 2000 MHz (32 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s. The bandwidth difference is roughly 25x in favor of the newer card, and the capacity difference is 24x.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. It delivers 5.000 GPixel/s pixel rate, 20.00 GTexel/s texture rate, and 480.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. It also brings 84 ray tracing cores and 336 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Fermi part. Its pixel rate is 293.1 GPixel/s, texture rate is 879.3 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 56.28 TFLOPS. The FP32 figure is more than 117 times higher, and the card also matches that 56.28 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, something the Quadro 2000D cannot do at all.

Power and physical design reflect the different eras. The Quadro 2000D is a 62 W single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It measures 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with two DVI outputs. The RTX 5080 SUPER is a 415 W dual-slot card with a single 16-pin power connector, measuring 304 mm in length, 137 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. Its display outputs are one HDMI 2.1b and three DisplayPort 2.1b. The bus interface moves from PCIe 2.0 x16 to PCIe 5.0 x16. The 5080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the 2000D tops out at DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support; both support OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: How does the Quadro 2000D compare to its closest rival, the Quadro K2000D?

A: The Quadro 2000D scores 3930, while the Quadro K2000D scores 3919. The 2000D is 0.3% ahead, a margin well within measurement noise.

Q: Is the RTX 5080 SUPER a clear winner over its nearest rivals in the database?

A: No. Its score of 3075 is 2.8% behind the Quadro P1000 and 3.4% behind the Intel Arc Pro B60, while it leads the GeForce 820A by 3.1% and the GTX 860M by 3.6%. The results are mixed.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 2000D has a density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter, while the RTX 5080 SUPER has 120.6 million per square millimeter, roughly 25 times denser.

Q: Does the RTX 5080 SUPER have ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: Yes. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 84 ray tracing cores and 336 tensor cores. The Quadro 2000D has neither, as Fermi architecture predates both features.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER has 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth, compared to 41.60 GB/s for the Quadro 2000D, a difference of roughly 25 times.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two cards?

A: The Quadro 2000D is end-of-life and was released in 2011. The RTX 5080 SUPER is active production, with a release date of 2025.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER |

|----------------|---------------------|-------------------------------|

| Architecture | Fermi | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 45,600 million |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 378 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 4.9M / mm² | 120.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | None recorded | 2295 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None recorded | 2617 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 650 MHz, 2.6 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 32 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 41.60 GB/s | 1.02 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 10752 |

| TMUs | 32 | 336 |

| ROPs | 16 | 112 |

| RT Cores | None | 84 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 336 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.000 GPixel/s | 293.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.00 GTexel/s | 879.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 480.0 GFLOPS | 56.28 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None recorded | 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 62 W | 415 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | None | 1.4 |

| Length | 178 mm (7 inches) | 304 mm (12 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 137 mm (5.4 inches) |

| Width | None recorded | 40 mm (1.6 inches) |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2011-10-04 | 2025-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | 999 USD |

The Verdict

The data tells a story of two cards from opposite ends of the GPU timeline. The Quadro 2000D is a Fermi-era professional card from 2011, designed for a world where 1 GB of VRAM was standard and DVI was the primary output. Its benchmark score of 3930 places it at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.7% of its performance. It was a capable entry-level workstation card for its time, but its architecture lacks every modern feature: no ray tracing, no tensor cores, no Vulkan support, and DirectX 12 support limited to the 11_0 feature level.

The RTX 5080 SUPER is a Blackwell 2.0 flagship from 2025, with 24 GB of GDDR7, 84 ray tracing cores, 336 tensor cores, and 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. Its specifications are orders of magnitude beyond the Quadro 2000D in every measurable way, from transistor count to memory bandwidth to pixel throughput. Yet its recorded benchmark score of 3075 sits at the 19th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the Quadro P1000 and GeForce GTX 860M, parts that are nowhere near its architectural class.

Who should pick which? For anyone running legacy professional applications that rely on Fermi-era driver behavior or DVI-only output, the Quadro 2000D is the only choice of these two, but it is end-of-life and its 480.0 GFLOPS FP32 ceiling will limit modern workloads. For anyone running current DirectX 12 Ultimate or Vulkan 1.4 titles, or any workload using ray tracing or tensor cores, the RTX 5080 SUPER is the only viable option, despite its lower percentile ranking in the database. The benchmark score discrepancy likely reflects the different test suites used, not the true performance gap. The RTX 5080 SUPER is the card for modern compute, rendering, and gaming. The Quadro 2000D is a historical artifact, useful only in legacy contexts. The data supports that conclusion through the sheer scale of the specification differences, even if the recorded benchmark averages do not align with expectations.