NVIDIA Quadro 2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P1000, with an average benchmark score of 3163, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 records a 3898 average. The P1000 sits at the 20th percentile of all GPUs, and the Quadro 2000 at the 23rd.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P1000 in the only shared OpenCL test?

A: The P1000 scores 13584 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 3898 for the Quadro 2000. That is a 71.3% delta in favor of the Pascal card, making it roughly 3.5 times faster.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The P1000 also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro 2000 lists no Vulkan support.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 2000 has 1 GB of GDDR5 memory with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the power requirements differences?

A: The Quadro 2000 has a 62 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro P1000 has a 47 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 200 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors.

Q: Which card is physically smaller?

A: The Quadro P1000 is 150 mm (5.9 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) tall. The Quadro 2000 is 178 mm (7 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. The P1000 is the shorter and lower-profile option.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip built on the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The Quadro P1000 uses the GP107 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, with 3,300 million transistors in a 132 mm² die, achieving 25.0 million transistors per square millimeter.

The P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These are large architectural differences. The P1000 has substantially more compute resources across the board.

Memory configurations also differ. The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5, while the P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both run on a 128-bit memory bus, but the P1000's memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) for the older card. This leads to 80.19 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s bandwidth.

The P1000 has an explicit boost clock of 1480 MHz and a base clock of 1266 MHz. The Quadro 2000's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. The P1000 also supports FP16 at 29.60 GFLOPS, with a 1:64 ratio, while the Quadro 2000 has no FP16 data.

Interface and output differences matter. The Quadro 2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the P1000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are completely different: the Quadro 2000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, whereas the P1000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro P1000 scores 13584, and the Quadro 2000 scores 3898. The delta is 71.3% in favor of the P1000. This is a decisive margin, indicating the P1000 is roughly 3.5 times faster in this compute workload.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for the Quadro 2000. It sits very close to the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, which averages 3883 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D at 3919 (0.5% ahead of the Quadro 2000). The Quadro 2000D averages 3930, and the GeForce GT 745M averages 3953. These deltas are all within 1.5%, meaning the Quadro 2000 is positioned in a tightly packed group.

The P1000's nearest rivals show a different picture. The Intel Arc Pro B60 averages 3182, which is 0.6% ahead of the P1000's 3163 average. The GeForce GT 640 averages 3210, and the GeForce 920M averages 3287. Notably, the GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER averages 3075, which is 2.9% behind the P1000 in this recorded average, an outlier in the stack.

The P1000's average score is dragged down by several low Passmark tests in its suite, such as 21 in DirectX 10, 31 in DirectX 11, and 19 in DirectX 12. Its Passmark G3D score is 4512, and its GPU compute score is 1891. The Quadro 2000 only has the single OpenCL score, so its average equals that.

Considering the head-to-head result, the P1000 is clearly the stronger compute card. The delta is large enough that the architectural differences in shading units and bandwidth translate directly into measurable performance.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only fields where the two GPUs differ:

| Specification | Quadro 2000 | Quadro P1000 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Pascal |

| Chip | GF106 | GP107 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 4.9M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Bandwidth | 41.60 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 640 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.000 GPixel/s | 47.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.00 GTexel/s | 59.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 480.0 GFLOPS | 1.894 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | N/A | 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 62 W | 47 W |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 178 mm x 111 mm | 150 mm x 69 mm |

| Release Date | 2010-12-23 | 2017-02-06 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Tesla | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler | Quadro Volta |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | N/A |

The P1000 also has a boost clock of 1480 MHz, while the Quadro 2000 has no recorded boost clock. The P1000 is the only one with a recorded FP16 capability.

The Verdict

The data is one-sided. The Quadro P1000 wins the only shared benchmark, and it wins by a huge margin. The P1000's OpenCL score is 13584 versus 3898, a 71.3% lead. The P1000 also has 640 shading units versus 192, 80.19 GB/s bandwidth versus 41.60 GB/s, and 4 GB of memory versus 1 GB. The P1000 is also more power-efficient, with a 47 W TDP versus 62 W, and a lower suggested PSU of 200 W versus 250 W.

The Quadro 2000 is an older Fermi card with a 40 nm process, and it was released in late 2010. The P1000 is a Pascal card from early 2017. Every measurable compute resource is larger on the P1000. The only respect where the Quadro 2000 shows a different profile is its nearest rivals: it sits in a cluster of cards that are within 1.5% of its score, meaning tiny differences separate it from the Radeon R5 Graphics, K2000D, and others.

For a professional workstation, the P1000 is the only rational choice from the recorded data. The Quadro 2000 is end-of-life, has a much smaller memory pool, and is significantly slower in OpenCL. The P1000 also gives you more modern API support, including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1). The Quadro 2000 can only do DirectX 12 (11_0).

There is no recorded scenario where the Quadro 2000 beats the P1000. The wins column confirms this: the P1000 has 1 win, the Quadro 2000 has 0.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro P1000:

• All compute workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL score is 3.5x higher (13584 vs 3898).
• Memory-heavy tasks. It has 4 GB versus 1 GB and 80.19 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s.
• Texture and pixel processing. The P1000 has 59.20 GTexel/s and 47.36 GPixel/s, versus 20.00 GTexel/s and 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000.
• Any application that uses Vulkan. The Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support.
• Lower-power builds. The P1000 has a 47 W TDP and 200 W PSU suggestion, versus 62 W and 250 W.
• Smaller chassis. The P1000 is 150 mm x 69 mm, the Quadro 2000 is 178 mm x 111 mm.

• Higher pixel fill rate tasks: 47.36 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s would theoretically be better for high-res displays, but the P1000 only has mini-DisplayPort outputs, while the Quadro 2000 has DVI.

NVIDIA Quadro 2000:

• There are no recorded benchmark wins. In the head-to-head, it loses 0-1.
• It does have a slightly higher percentile rank (23rd vs 20th), but that is due to the database distribution, not superior performance.
• It offers a DVI port, which the P1000 lacks. If your display requires DVI, the Quadro 2000 has that connectivity.
• It has a slightly higher average score relative to its nearest rivals (0.4% ahead of the Radeon R5 Graphics), but that is within a tight cluster.

In practice, the Quadro 2000 is only preferable if you have a legacy requirement for a DVI output and do not care about compute performance. For any modern workload, the Pascal-based P1000 is the only choice from the recorded data.