NVIDIA Quadro P2000 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server sit at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores are surprisingly close. The Quadro P2000, a 2017 Pascal-era workstation card, holds an average benchmark score of 6049, while the 2025 Blackwell server part scores 5996. These figures place both cards in a similar percentile band, with the P2000 at the 35th percentile and the RTX PRO 6000 at the 34th percentile. This near-parity in aggregate scoring, however, masks a chasm in raw specifications and intended workloads, making the choice between them a matter of matching the right tool to the right task.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the Quadro P2000 is the only viable option for legacy DirectX workloads, while the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is the definitive choice for modern, compute-heavy tasks. In the passmark DirectX 9 test, the P2000 scores 124, dwarfing the RTX PRO 6000’s absence from that benchmark suite entirely. Similarly, in DirectX 10 and DirectX 11, the P2000 posts scores of 34 and 47, respectively; the RTX PRO 6000 has no recorded results for those tests. If your application relies on older graphics APIs, the P2000 is the only card in this comparison with data to support it.

Conversely, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is the only one with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result, scoring 5996. Its architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P2000 maxes out at DirectX 12 (12_1). For any modern DX12 workload, the RTX PRO 6000 is the sole contender with measured performance. The verdict is not about which card is "better" overall—their average scores are within 1% of each other—but about which environment you operate in. The P2000 serves legacy and light professional use; the RTX PRO 6000 serves server-class compute and next-generation graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins decisively in legacy API benchmarks. It has recorded scores for passmark DirectX 9 (124), DirectX 10 (34), DirectX 11 (47), and DirectX 12 (28). The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server has no entries for any of these tests, so the P2000 is the only card with proven performance in those areas. Its pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s and texture rate of 94.72 GTexel/s, though modest by modern standards, are present and functional. The P2000 also holds a passmark G2D score of 626, indicating competent 2D and desktop rendering capability.

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server wins in every category where it has data. Its sole benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, yields a score of 5996, which is its only measured performance point. Beyond benchmarks, its specification sheet shows overwhelming advantages: 24064 shading units versus 1024, 752 tensor cores versus none, and 188 RT cores versus none. The P2000 has no ray tracing or tensor core hardware at all. In OpenCL and Vulkan, the P2000 records scores of 20125 and 23566, respectively, but the RTX PRO 6000 has no such test results. The RTX PRO 6000’s FP32 throughput of 126.0 TFLOPS is over 40 times the P2000’s 3.031 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance of 126.0 TFLOPS dwarfs the P2000’s 47.36 GFLOPS. For any compute task that can leverage these resources, the RTX PRO 6000 is the only sensible pick.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share a manufacturer but diverge completely in silicon. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server uses the GB202 chip on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 5 nm node. This chip houses 92,200 million transistors across a 750 mm² die, achieving a density of 122.9M per mm². The RTX PRO 6000 has over 20 times the transistor count and roughly six times the die area.

Memory configurations are equally divergent. The P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX PRO 6000 offers 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, with 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth—over 12 times the P2000’s throughput. Clock speeds also differ: the P2000 runs at a base of 1076 MHz and boosts to 1480 MHz, while the RTX PRO 6000 has a base of 1590 MHz and boosts to 2617 MHz. The RTX PRO 6000 also includes dedicated RT cores (188) and tensor cores (752), features entirely absent from the P2000. The P2000’s FP16 performance is rated at 47.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, indicating heavily reduced half-precision throughput, while the RTX PRO 6000 achieves 126.0 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. These are not incremental differences; they represent two entirely different classes of hardware.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro P2000 has an average benchmark score of 6049, while the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5996, a difference of roughly 0.9% in favor of the P2000.

Q: Does the RTX PRO 6000 support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) as its supported API, whereas the Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro P2000 has a memory bandwidth of 140.2 GB/s, while the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server delivers 1.79 TB/s, which is over 12 times higher.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where both cards have recorded scores?

A: No, the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The P2000 has scores for OpenCL, Vulkan, and multiple passmark tests, while the RTX PRO 6000 has only a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server has 24064 shading units, compared to 1024 on the Quadro P2000, a 23.5-fold difference.

Q: What are the power connector requirements?

A: The Quadro P2000 requires no power connectors and has a TDP of 75 W, while the RTX PRO 6000 uses a single 16-pin connector and has a TDP of 600 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two cards, as the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. Instead, each card has its own distinct benchmark suite, making direct numerical comparison impossible. The Quadro P2000’s best single score is its passmark G3D result of 6956, followed by its Vulkan score of 23566 and OpenCL score of 20125. Its lowest recorded scores are in passmark DirectX 12 (28) and DirectX 10 (34). The RTX PRO 6000’s only benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, yields a score of 5996, which is its entire measured output.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides context. The P2000’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, with an average score of 6077 and a deltaPct of -0.5, meaning the P2000 is 0.5% behind. Its closest competitor ahead is the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019, where the P2000 is 0.5% ahead. The RTX PRO 6000’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, scoring 6000 with a deltaPct of -0.1, and it trails the AMD Radeon RX 6400 by 0.1% (that card scores 6001). These rivalries show that in aggregate scoring, both cards sit in a crowded mid-range pack, despite their vast hardware differences. The P2000’s passmark G2D score of 626 and G3D score of 6956 indicate its strongest showing is in traditional 3D rasterization, while the RTX PRO 6000’s Steel Nomad result, a modern DX12 test, shows it can handle contemporary graphics loads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip on a 16 nm process, while the RTX PRO 6000 uses GB202 on 5 nm. Transistor counts are 4,400 million versus 92,200 million. Die sizes are 200 mm² versus 750 mm². The P2000 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs; the RTX PRO 6000 has 24064 shading units, 752 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The P2000 has no RT cores or tensor cores, while the RTX PRO 6000 has 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores.

Clock speeds: the P2000 runs at 1076 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost, while the RTX PRO 6000 runs at 1590 MHz base and 2617 MHz boost. Memory: the P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth; the RTX PRO 6000 has 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus with 1.79 TB/s bandwidth. Performance rates: the P2000 achieves 59.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 94.72 GTexel/s texture rate, while the RTX PRO 6000 achieves 502.5 GPixel/s and 1,968.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.031 TFLOPS versus 126.0 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) versus 126.0 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specs: the P2000 has a 75 W TDP with no power connectors, a single-slot design, and measures 196 mm in length. The RTX PRO 6000 has a 600 W TDP, requires a 16-pin connector, is dual-slot, and measures 267 mm. The P2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RTX PRO 6000 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the P2000 versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1b on the RTX PRO 6000. The P2000 is end-of-life, released in 2017, while the RTX PRO 6000 is active, released in 2025. The P2000’s predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta; the RTX PRO 6000’s predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin.