NVIDIA Quadro 2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a clear, though not overwhelming, victory for the NVIDIA Quadro P400. The P400 scores 4249, while the Quadro 2000D trails at 3930. This yields a delta of 8.1%, meaning the P400 is roughly 8% faster in this compute-oriented workload. The margin is meaningful but not transformative; it suggests a generational advantage in raw compute throughput rather than a complete overhaul of performance class.

Contextualizing the P400 against its broader benchmark field shows it sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4684. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and the AMD Radeon R5 M320, both with an average score of 4657, placing the P400 just 0.6% ahead of those parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is 1.2% behind the P400. This clustering indicates the P400 occupies a very specific performance tier, one where small percentage differences separate adjacent products.

The Quadro 2000D, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3930 and sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, scores 3919, a negligible 0.3% gap. The GeForce GT 745M is 0.6% ahead, while the AMD Radeon R5 M420 and the GeForce 830M are each 0.7% ahead. The 2000D is thus anchored in a slightly lower performance band, and the 8.1% gap between the two Quadro cards mirrors the percentile difference between them.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two cards is substantial, reflecting nearly six years of GPU evolution. The Quadro P400 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP107 chip manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The Quadro 2000D uses the Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process. The process node difference alone, 14 nm versus 40 nm, explains a great deal about the efficiency and density disparities between the two.

Transistor counts tell a striking story. The P400 packs 3,300 million transistors onto a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The 2000D has only 1,170 million transistors spread across a much larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 4.9 million per square millimeter. The P400 achieves more than five times the transistor density, a direct consequence of the newer fabrication process.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The P400 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1002 MHz and 4 Gbps effective speed, producing 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, clocked at 650 MHz with 2.6 Gbps effective speed, yielding 41.60 GB/s. The 2000D actually has more memory bandwidth due to its wider bus, but the P400 compensates with double the capacity and a much faster clock.

Compute resources show a different balance. The P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. While the P400 has more shaders, the 2000D has double the texture mapping units. Pixel rates are dramatically different: the P400 delivers 20.03 GPixel/s versus the 2000D's 5.000 GPixel/s. Texture rates are nearly identical, 20.03 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s.

Floating-point performance favors the P400, which reaches 641.0 GFLOPS in FP32. The 2000D manages 480.0 GFLOPS. Notably, the P400 also supports FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS, while the 2000D has no recorded FP16 capability. The P400 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the 2000D only reaches DirectX 11_0 and has no Vulkan support. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Power and physical characteristics diverge sharply. The P400 has a TDP of 30 W, while the 2000D draws 62 W. The P400 is 150 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the 2000D is larger at 178 mm by 111 mm. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, but the suggested PSU rating differs: 200 W for the P400, 250 W for the 2000D. The P400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, the 2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ, with the P400 offering three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors and the 2000D providing two DVI outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P400 is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its 8.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with higher FP32 throughput (641.0 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS), makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks. The P400 also has a significant advantage in pixel fill rate, 20.03 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, which suggests better performance in rasterization-heavy workloads that depend on ROP throughput.

Memory capacity favors the P400 as well. With 2 GB versus 1024 MB, the P400 can handle larger working sets without spilling to system memory. This matters for modern applications that demand more video memory. However, the 2000D retains a bandwidth advantage, 41.60 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s, which could benefit workloads that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound.

The 2000D wins on connectivity for legacy displays. Its dual DVI outputs are directly compatible with older monitors and projectors that lack DisplayPort inputs. The P400's three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors require adapters for DVI or HDMI connections, which could be a consideration for specific workstation setups.

Power efficiency is a decisive P400 advantage. The 30 W TDP versus 62 W means the P400 draws less than half the power of the 2000D while delivering higher compute performance. The newer process node and architecture make this possible. The 2000D's higher suggested PSU requirement, 250 W versus 200 W, also reflects its greater power appetite.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Quadro P400 as the superior card in almost every measurable dimension. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 8.1%, has higher compute throughput, double the memory capacity, better pixel fill rate, newer API support, and dramatically lower power consumption. The architecture differences, Pascal versus Fermi, and process node improvements, 14 nm versus 40 nm, explain most of these gaps.

The Quadro 2000D retains a few specific advantages. Its memory bandwidth is higher, 41.60 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s, and its dual DVI outputs provide native support for legacy displays. The 2000D also has more TMUs, 32 versus 16, though this does not translate into a texture rate advantage. For users with older DVI-only monitors and bandwidth-sensitive workloads, the 2000D could still serve a niche role.

For anyone choosing between these two end-of-life professional cards, the P400 is the rational pick. It offers better performance, more memory, lower power draw, and modern API support. The 2000D's launch MSRP was 599 USD, but that figure carries little weight today given both cards are end-of-life. The data indicates the P400 outperforms the 2000D in compute, efficiency, and feature support, making it the stronger option for virtually all modern workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4249, which is 8.1% higher than the Quadro 2000D's 3930.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the 2000D has 1024 MB. Despite this, the 2000D has higher memory bandwidth at 41.60 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The P400 has a TDP of 30 W, while the 2000D has a TDP of 62 W. The suggested PSU is 200 W for the P400 and 250 W for the 2000D.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: No. The P400 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. The 2000D supports DirectX 11_0 and has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which card has better pixel fill rate?

A: The P400 delivers 20.03 GPixel/s, which is substantially higher than the 2000D's 5.000 GPixel/s.

Q: What display outputs does each card provide?

A: The P400 has three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The 2000D has two DVI outputs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P400 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Fermi |

| Chip | GP107 | GF106 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

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

| Die Size | 132 mm² | 238 mm² |

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

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 650 MHz, 2.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.06 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 192 |

| TMUs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.03 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.03 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 641.0 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64) | None recorded |

| TDP | 30 W | 62 W |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | None recorded |

| Dimensions | 150 mm (5.9 inches) long, 69 mm (2.7 inches) high | 178 mm (7 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high |

| Release Date | 2017-02-06 | 2011-10-04 |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | 599 USD |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | Quadro Kepler |