NVIDIA Quadro 2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two professional workstation cards. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins the only head-to-head test recorded in the database, taking the Geekbench OpenCL result with a score of 4249 against the Quadro 2000's 3898. That is a decisive 8.3% margin in favor of the newer card. The Quadro 2000 does not win any benchmark in the direct comparison, recording zero wins to the P400's one.

Looking beyond the direct matchup, the overall database standing reinforces this ordering. The Quadro P400 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000 sits at the 23rd percentile. The P400's average benchmark score of 4684 pulls ahead of the 2000's 3898 by a substantial amount. However, that average for the P400 includes two recorded tests (OpenCL at 4249 and Vulkan at 5119), while the 2000 only has the single OpenCL result. The Vulkan score of 5119 shows the Pascal card has particular strength in that API, a test the Fermi card cannot even run according to the database.

The use-case split is straightforward: the Quadro P400 wins the compute workloads captured by OpenCL and adds a Vulkan capability the older card lacks entirely. The Quadro 2000's single-slot, 62 W design and older architecture place it in a different performance tier, one where it trails not only the P400 but also sits close to integrated graphics solutions like the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, just 0.4% behind the 2000). For any task that stresses the GPU through modern APIs, the P400 is the clear choice.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different design eras. The Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip built on the Fermi architecture, produced 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 P400, by contrast, uses the GP107 chip on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on Samsung's 14 nm process. That process shrink allows 3,300 million transistors in a much smaller 132 mm² die, yielding 25.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The density difference is enormous: the P400 crams nearly three times the transistors into roughly half the silicon area.

The compute resources reflect this generational leap. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Quadro P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. So the newer card has 33% more shading units but half the texture units. The ROP count stays identical at 16. The memory subsystem also diverges: the 2000 uses a 128-bit bus width, while the P400 uses a 64-bit bus, yet the newer card still manages competitive bandwidth figures (32.06 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s) thanks to faster memory clocks.

The P400 also introduces features the 2000 lacks. It supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 2000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The P400 has a base clock of 1228 MHz and a boost clock of 1252 MHz; the 2000 has no base or boost clock recorded. The memory clocks differ as well: the 2000 runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), the P400 at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The P400 also has a halved FP16 rate of 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64), which is notable given its FP32 output of 641.0 GFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro P400 scores 4249, and the Quadro 2000 scores 3898. The delta is 8.3% in favor of the P400. This result aligns with the raw compute specifications: the P400 delivers 641.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, versus 480.0 GFLOPS for the 2000, a 33.5% advantage. Yet the actual benchmark margin is smaller, suggesting that memory bandwidth constraints (the P400's 32.06 GB/s versus the 2000's 41.60 GB/s) or driver overhead narrow the gap in practice.

The pixel rate tells a similar story of generational improvement. The P400 achieves 20.03 GPixel/s, while the 2000 manages only 5.000 GPixel/s. That is a fourfold difference. Texture rate is nearly identical (20.03 GTexel/s for the P400 versus 20.00 GTexel/s for the 2000), so the two cards are matched in that specific throughput metric despite the 2000 having twice as many TMUs. The P400's higher clock speed compensates for its fewer texture units.

For the Vulkan test, only the P400 has a recorded score (5119). The 2000 has no Vulkan benchmark in the database, consistent with its lack of Vulkan API support. This is not a comparison but a capability gap: the Fermi card cannot participate in this workload at all. The P400's Vulkan score of 5119 is 20.5% higher than its own OpenCL score, indicating the Pascal architecture is particularly well-optimized for that API.

Specification Differences

The cards differ on nearly every recorded specification. The process node moves from 40 nm (TSMC) to 14 nm (Samsung). Transistor count rises from 1,170 million to 3,300 million. Die size shrinks from 238 mm² to 132 mm². Transistor density jumps from 4.9M/mm² to 25.0M/mm². The chip changes from GF106 to GP107, and the architecture from Fermi to Pascal.

Memory configuration differs: 1024 MB versus 2 GB, both GDDR5, but the bus width drops from 128 bit to 64 bit. Bandwidth decreases from 41.60 GB/s to 32.06 GB/s. Memory clock rises from 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) to 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Shading units increase from 192 to 256. TMUs drop from 32 to 16. ROPs stay at 16. FP32 output rises from 480.0 GFLOPS to 641.0 GFLOPS. Pixel rate rises from 5.000 GPixel/s to 20.03 GPixel/s. Texture rate stays roughly level at 20.00 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specs also shift. TDP drops from 62 W to 30 W. The suggested PSU requirement falls from 250 W to 200 W. Both are single-slot with no power connectors. The bus interface advances from PCIe 2.0 x16 to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs change from 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort to 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The P400 is shorter (150 mm, 5.9 inches versus 178 mm, 7 inches) and lower profile (69 mm, 2.7 inches height versus 111 mm, 4.4 inches). The 2000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the P400 has no recorded launch price. Release dates differ (2010-12-23 for the 2000, 2017-02-06 for the P400), and each belongs to a different generation with different predecessors and successors.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the only directly comparable benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4249, beating the Quadro 2000's 3898 by 8.3%.

Q: Do these cards support the same APIs?

A: No. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro 2000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. The Quadro P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do their compute performances compare?

A: The P400 delivers 641.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the 2000 delivers 480.0 GFLOPS. The P400 also has a recorded FP16 rate of 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64), which the 2000 lacks entirely.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth, but runs at a higher effective memory speed of 4 Gbps versus 2.6 Gbps.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Quadro 2000 wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the Quadro 2000 wins zero benchmarks, while the P400 wins one. The 2000 also has no Vulkan benchmark score, while the P400 scores 5119 in that test.

Q: How do the cards rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro P400 sits at the 27th percentile with an average benchmark score of 4684. The Quadro 2000 sits at the 23rd percentile with an average score of 3898.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the superior card in every measurable way. It wins the only direct benchmark comparison (OpenCL, 4249 versus 3898), has a higher average benchmark score (4684 versus 3898), sits at a higher percentile (27th versus 23rd), and supports Vulkan, which the Quadro 2000 cannot run at all. Its FP32 output (641.0 GFLOPS) exceeds the 2000's (480.0 GFLOPS), and its pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s) is four times higher.

The Quadro 2000 retains some structural advantages: a wider 128-bit memory bus, higher memory bandwidth (41.60 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s), more TMUs (32 versus 16), and a higher transistor count per unit of die area is not an advantage but the 2000 does have the larger die. However, none of these translate into a benchmark victory. The 2000's nearest rivals include integrated-class parts like the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, only 0.4% behind), showing it now competes at the bottom of the performance scale. The P400's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657, within 0.6%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, within 1.2%), placing it in a much faster tier.

For buyers choosing between these two, the P400 is the only rational pick from a performance standpoint. It delivers roughly 33% more FP32 compute, a modern API set, double the memory capacity, and lower power consumption (30 W versus 62 W), all in a smaller physical package. The 2000's sole distinguishing feature is its higher memory bandwidth, but that does not offset its other deficits in the recorded data. The Quadro 2000 is end-of-life and was launched in 2010; the P400 is also end-of-life but launched in 2017. The seven years of architectural progress show clearly in every metric the database records.