NVIDIA Quadro 2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data in the database paints a clear picture for these two professional workstation cards. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is the decisive winner in every recorded benchmark comparison, making it the only sensible choice for any workload represented in our measurements. The Quadro P1000 outperforms the older Quadro 2000D by a massive margin in the single shared benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 13584 against 3930, a difference of 71.1 percent in favor of the newer card.

The Quadro 2000D is a legacy product from 2011, built on the Fermi architecture, and its benchmark data places it in a performance tier that is now occupied by entry-level mobile and desktop parts. Its average benchmark score of 3930 puts it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, and its closest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M and the AMD Radeon R5 M420, with performance deltas of less than one percent. This indicates that the Quadro 2000D is not competitive by modern standards.

For a buyer looking at these two options today, the recommendation is straightforward: the Quadro P1000 is the only viable pick for any task involving compute, rendering, or modern API support. The Quadro 2000D should only be considered for legacy system validation or for running software that specifically requires the older Fermi-era feature set. The P1000 also carries a lower total board power of 47 W compared to the 2000D's 62 W, and it requires a smaller suggested power supply at 200 W versus 250 W, making it the more efficient option as well.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark records show a single head-to-head comparison, and the Quadro P1000 wins it outright. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P1000 scores 13584, which is 71.1 percent higher than the Quadro 2000D's score of 3930. This is the only direct comparison available, and it shows a complete victory for the Pascal-based card.

Beyond that single test, the P1000 has a much broader set of recorded benchmark results. It has data for Vulkan, DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, as well as Passmark 2D, 3D, and compute tests. The Quadro 2000D only has a single OpenCL entry. This means the P1000 can be evaluated across a range of workloads, including modern graphics APIs and compute tasks, while the 2000D cannot be assessed for those same scenarios.

The P1000's strengths lie in its higher raw compute throughput, its support for Vulkan 1.4, and its DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level. The Quadro 2000D, with its DirectX 12 (11_0) support and no Vulkan entry, is limited to older API environments. In any workload that can leverage the newer APIs, the P1000 is the clear winner. For legacy applications that only use OpenGL or older DirectX versions, the 2000D can still function, but its performance ceiling is far lower.

The 2000D does not win any recorded benchmark. Its only advantage is its age and compatibility with very old software stacks, but even then, its performance is severely limited by its 192 shading units and 40 nanometer process node. The data does not support any scenario where the 2000D is the preferred choice for performance.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different GPU generations. The Quadro 2000D is based on the Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip, while the Quadro P1000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP107 chip. This generational gap is reflected in every major architectural specification.

The manufacturing process is a major differentiator. The 2000D uses a 40 nm process at TSMC, packing 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The P1000 uses a 14 nm process at Samsung, with 3,300 million transistors in a smaller 132 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The P1000 packs nearly three times the transistor count into a die that is less than two-thirds the size.

Memory configuration also differs significantly. Both cards use GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, but the similarities end there. The 2000D has 1024 MB of memory with a bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s, while the P1000 has 4 GB with a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The P1000 has four times the capacity and nearly double the bandwidth.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the P1000. The 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The P1000 also has significantly higher clock rates, with a base clock of 1266 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz, while the 2000D has no recorded base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). The P1000's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The API support differs as well. The 2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P1000 also has a recorded FP16 performance of 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the 2000D has no FP16 data.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 13584 compared to the Quadro 2000D's 3930, a 71.1 percent advantage.

Q: Can the Quadro 2000D run modern graphics APIs?

A: No. The Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support and only DirectX 12 (11_0) support. The Quadro P1000 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory. The Quadro P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, four times as much.

Q: What are the power requirements for these cards?

A: The Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The Quadro P1000 has a TDP of 47 W and a suggested power supply of 200 W.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro P1000 has a pixel rate of 47.36 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 2000D has a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both cards are listed as end-of-life. The Quadro 2000D was released on October 4, 2011, and the Quadro P1000 was released on February 6, 2017.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are lopsided. The Quadro P1000 scores 13584, while the Quadro 2000D scores 3930. This is a performance gap of 71.1 percent in favor of the P1000. To put that in perspective, the 2000D's score of 3930 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 (0.3 percent slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953 (0.6 percent faster), and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956 (0.7 percent faster). The 2000D is essentially performing at the level of a low-end mobile GPU from several years ago.

The P1000, on the other hand, has a score of 13584 that places it far above its nearest rivals in the database. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc Pro B60, scores 3182, which is 0.6 percent lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 scores 3210 (1.5 percent lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce 920M scores 3287 (3.8 percent lower). The P1000's OpenCL score is more than four times higher than these comparison points, although the database shows its average benchmark score across all tests is 3163, which is lower than its OpenCL result due to the inclusion of lower-scoring Passmark tests.

The P1000 also shows strong results in its other recorded benchmarks. It achieves a Passmark G3D score of 4512, a Passmark G2D score of 589, and a GPU compute score of 1891. For DirectX, it scores 79 in DirectX 9, 31 in DirectX 11, 21 in DirectX 10, and 19 in DirectX 12. Its Vulkan score is 7739. The Quadro 2000D has none of these results, so no direct comparison is possible for those workloads. However, given the 71.1 percent deficit in OpenCL, it is reasonable to expect similar margins in other compute-heavy tasks.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The process node is a key difference: the Quadro 2000D uses a 40 nm process from TSMC, while the Quadro P1000 uses a 14 nm process from Samsung. Transistor counts are 1,170 million for the 2000D and 3,300 million for the P1000. Die sizes are 238 mm² and 132 mm², respectively. Transistor density is 4.9M per mm² for the 2000D and 25.0M per mm² for the P1000.

Memory capacity is 1024 MB for the 2000D versus 4 GB for the P1000. Memory bandwidth is 41.60 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. The memory clock is 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) for the 2000D and 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the P1000.

Shading units are 192 for the 2000D and 640 for the P1000. TMUs are 32 versus 40. ROPs are 16 versus 32. Pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s versus 47.36 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s versus 59.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 480.0 GFLOPS versus 1.894 TFLOPS. The P1000 also has a recorded FP16 rate of 29.60 GFLOPS, while the 2000D has none.

The TDP is 62 W for the 2000D and 47 W for the P1000. The suggested PSU is 250 W versus 200 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the 2000D and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the P1000. Display outputs are 2x DVI for the 2000D and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the P1000.

API support differs: the 2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 with no Vulkan. The P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Dimensions are 178 mm by 111 mm for the 2000D and 150 mm by 69 mm for the P1000. The 2000D has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the P1000 has no recorded launch MSRP. The 2000D was released on October 4, 2011, and the P1000 on February 6, 2017.