NVIDIA Quadro P2000 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A400 and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 sit at nearly identical points in the overall performance hierarchy, separated by just 0.5% in average benchmark score. Yet the data reveals two very different tools for different jobs. The A400 is the modern, efficient option that dominates in 2D workloads and compute APIs built for current software, while the P2000 is the older, larger card that still holds a decisive edge across most DirectX gaming-era tests and raw 3D rasterization. This is not a contest of equal strengths — it is a choice between architectural generations.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in the tests that reflect modern application demands and general desktop responsiveness. Its most significant victory is in Passmark G2D, where it scores 899 against the P2000’s 626 — a 43.6% advantage. This indicates substantially better 2D performance, which translates to smoother UI rendering, faster image manipulation, and better multi-monitor desktop handling. It also wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 22844 versus 20125, a 13.5% lead, showing that its compute shaders handle OpenCL workloads more efficiently than the Pascal card.

The Quadro P2000 wins in the majority of the remaining tests. It takes Geekbench Vulkan with 23566 versus 22237, a 5.6% lead, indicating better low-level graphics API performance. More importantly, it dominates in legacy DirectX tests: Passmark DirectX 11 shows a 21.3% advantage (47 vs 37), and DirectX 9 shows a massive 29.8% lead (124 vs 87). Its Passmark G3D score of 6956 is 14% higher than the A400’s 5983, and its GPU compute score of 2933 beats the A400’s 2557 by 12.8%. If your software relies on rasterization through older DirectX paths, the P2000 is the clear winner.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental split is generational. The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip on Pascal architecture, built by TSMC on a 16 nm process. This explains the efficiency gap: the A400 has a 50 W TDP against the P2000’s 75 W, and it supports PCIe 4.0 x8 versus the P2000’s PCIe 3.0 x16.

The transistor counts tell a story of density. The A400 packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a density of 43.5M per mm². The P2000 has 4,400 million transistors on the same 200 mm² die, at 22.0M per mm². This means the A400 fits twice the logic into the same physical space, a direct result of the newer process node.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2000 uses 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s. The P2000 has more capacity and significantly more bandwidth, which explains its edge in bandwidth-hungry 3D workloads. The A400 compensates with faster memory clock speed: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus the P2000’s 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) — the GDDR6 standard allows higher data rates per pin.

Feature support is where the A400 pulls ahead. It includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, enabling hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration that the P2000 lacks entirely. The A400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P2000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the A400’s API ceiling is higher for future software.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the G2D test. The A400’s 899 score versus the P2000’s 626 represents a 43.6% win, the largest margin in the entire comparison. This suggests the A400’s newer display engine and memory architecture are far better suited to 2D composition tasks. This is a practical win for professional users who spend hours in spreadsheets, code editors, or CAD wireframes rather than rendering scenes.

In OpenCL, the A400 wins by 13.5%, scoring 22844 against 20125. This is notable because OpenCL is widely used in scientific computing and video encoding. The Ampere architecture’s compute performance, even with fewer shading units (768 vs 1024), is more efficient per unit. The A400’s FP32 throughput is 2.706 TFLOPS, slightly lower than the P2000’s 3.031 TFLOPS, yet it still wins in this compute benchmark, indicating better scheduling or memory access patterns.

The P2000’s wins are concentrated in the DirectX suite. DirectX 11 shows a 21.3% lead (47 vs 37), and DirectX 9 shows a 29.8% lead (124 vs 87). These are large margins that suggest the P2000’s rasterization pipeline is simply more capable for these older APIs. The P2000 also wins DirectX 10 by 5.9% and DirectX 12 by 3.6%, though the latter is close enough to be within noise. Its G3D score of 6956 versus 5983 is a 14% win, reinforcing that the P2000 is the stronger pure 3D rasterizer.

Vulkan performance goes to the P2000 by 5.6% (23566 vs 22237). This is interesting because Vulkan is a modern API, but the P2000’s higher shading unit count (1024 vs 768) and wider memory bus likely carry it through. The GPU compute test also favors the P2000 by 12.8% (2933 vs 2557), suggesting that for compute workloads not using OpenCL, the P2000’s raw FP32 power wins out.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical — the RTX A400 averages 6078, and the Quadro P2000 averages 6049, a 0.5% difference. In the 9 head-to-head tests, the P2000 wins 7 and the A400 wins 2.

Q: Is the RTX A400 better for modern software?

A: Yes. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores for ray tracing and AI, and wins Geekbench OpenCL by 13.5% and Passmark G2D by 43.6%. Its 8 nm process and 50 W TDP also make it more efficient.

Q: Why does the Quadro P2000 win so many DirectX tests?

A: The P2000 has 1024 shading units versus the A400’s 768, a 160-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s. These give it an edge in rasterization-heavy workloads, leading to wins in DirectX 9 (29.8%), DirectX 11 (21.3%), and G3D (14%).

Q: Can the RTX A400 do ray tracing?

A: Yes, it includes 6 RT cores specifically for ray tracing. The Quadro P2000 has no RT cores and cannot accelerate ray tracing in hardware.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5, while the RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6. The P2000 also has higher bandwidth at 140.2 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Are these cards physically similar?

A: No. The RTX A400 is smaller at 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the P2000 is 196 mm by 111 mm. Both are single-slot with no power connectors, and both suggest a 250 W PSU.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA RTX A400 if your work involves OpenCL compute, 2D-heavy desktop tasks, or any software that can leverage ray tracing and tensor cores. Its 43.6% G2D win and 13.5% OpenCL win are decisive, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate ensures it will run the newest graphical features. It is also the forward-looking option, with an active production status and a 2024 release date.

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 if your workload is dominated by traditional 3D rasterization through DirectX APIs. Its wins in DirectX 9 (29.8%), DirectX 11 (21.3%), and G3D (14%) are substantial, and its 5 GB memory capacity with higher bandwidth is better for holding larger textures. However, its Pascal architecture lacks RT and tensor cores, and its end-of-life production status means no future driver optimizations for new features.

The data shows a clear trade-off. The P2000 is the stronger rasterizer for older APIs, but the A400 is the better all-rounder for modern compute and 2D workloads. If you need ray tracing or AI features, the A400 is the only choice. If you need maximum raw 3D throughput in legacy applications, the P2000 still delivers.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A400 | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Pascal |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 16 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 4,400 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 22.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1417 MHz | 1076 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1762 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 140.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 24 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 40 |

| RT Cores | 6 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 24 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 28.19 GPixel/s | 59.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 42.29 GTexel/s | 94.72 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.706 TFLOPS | 3.031 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) | 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | 163 mm (6.4 inches) | 196 mm (7.7 inches) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

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

| Release Date | 2024-04-15 | 2017-02-05 |