NVIDIA Quadro P2000 vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

The NVIDIA T600 and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 are both end-of-life professional workstation cards, but they represent different design philosophies from different eras. The T600 is a modern Turing-based card focused on efficiency and new API features, while the P2000 is a larger Pascal-based card with more raw compute hardware. The benchmark data shows a clear split between compute-heavy workloads and compute-light workloads, making the choice highly dependent on the specific application.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic difference in the recorded data is in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The T600 scores 27,875, which is 38.5% ahead of the P2000's 20,125. This is a massive lead in a general-purpose compute benchmark and indicates that the T600's Turing architecture provides a significant advantage in OpenCL workloads, likely due to architectural efficiency and newer instruction support. This is the single largest performance gap between the two cards in any test.

The T600 also wins the Vulkan benchmark, scoring 25,580 against the P2000's 23,566. This is a more modest 8.5% lead, but still a clear victory. Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API, and the T600's newer architecture appears to handle it better. The T600 also takes the Passmark DirectX 11 test with a score of 49 versus 47, a narrow 4.3% advantage, and the Passmark G2D test with 756 versus 626, a substantial 20.8% lead in 2D graphics workloads.

The P2000 fights back in the other benchmarks. The most significant win for the P2000 is in Passmark GPU Compute, where it scores 2,933 against the T600's 2,402, an 18.1% advantage. This is a key result, as it shows the P2000's larger number of shading units and higher raw FP32 throughput translate to better performance in compute tasks that are not optimized for the T600's newer features.

In the direct gaming-era API tests, the P2000 shows its strength. It wins Passmark DirectX 9 with a score of 124 versus 114, an 8.1% lead. It also wins Passmark DirectX 10 with 34 versus 32, a 5.9% advantage, and Passmark DirectX 12 with 28 versus 25, a 10.7% lead. The overall Passmark G3D score also favors the P2000, with 6,956 versus 6,479, a 6.9% difference. The P2000 wins 5 of the 9 head-to-head benchmarks, while the T600 wins 4, but the margin of victory is much larger for the T600 in its wins, particularly the OpenCL test.

Where Each One Wins

The data presents a clear picture of two distinct profiles. The NVIDIA T600 is the winner for compute-heavy, modern-API workloads. Its 38.5% lead in OpenCL and 8.5% lead in Vulkan suggest it is the better choice for applications that leverage these interfaces, such as newer rendering engines, scientific computing frameworks, and machine learning inference tasks that use OpenCL. Its 20.8% lead in G2D also makes it the stronger option for multi-monitor desktop environments and 2D design work where user interface responsiveness is paramount.

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the winner for legacy DirectX workloads and raw pixel-pushing performance. Its wins in DirectX 9, 10, and 12, combined with its 6.9% lead in the overall G3D score, indicate it is better suited for older applications, OpenGL-based CAD software that relies on DirectX emulation, and any workload that depends on the P2000's higher pixel rate and texture rate. The P2000's 18.1% lead in Passmark GPU Compute also makes it the stronger choice for compute tasks that are written to use the card's more traditional compute units, such as certain simulation or rendering tasks that do not benefit from Turing-specific optimizations.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on different generations of NVIDIA architecture. The T600 uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip based on the older Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. Both have the same die size of 200 mm², but the T600 packs 4,700 million transistors versus the P2000's 4,400 million, giving the T600 a higher transistor density of 23.5M per mm² compared to 22.0M per mm².

The core configurations are significantly different. The P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The T600 has only 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This explains the P2000's higher raw fillrate and compute scores; it has more hardware to work with. However, the P2000's FP16 performance is a weak point, rated at only 47.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the T600 delivers 3.418 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. This means the T600 is dramatically better at half-precision compute, a feature that is increasingly used in AI and certain scientific workloads.

Memory configurations also differ. The T600 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2000 uses 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a wider 160-bit bus, but delivers less bandwidth at 140.2 GB/s. The T600's memory clock is 1250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed, while the P2000 runs at 1752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective speed. The T600 also has a lower TDP of 40 W versus the P2000's 75 W, and a lower suggested PSU of 200 W versus 250 W. Both cards are single-slot with no power connectors, but the P2000 has a defined length of 196 mm and height of 111 mm, while the T600's dimensions are not recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card is better for OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA T600 is significantly better. It scores 27,875 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 38.5% higher than the Quadro P2000's 20,125.

Q: Which card performs better in legacy DirectX applications?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 holds the advantage in older APIs. It leads in DirectX 9 (124 vs 114), DirectX 10 (34 vs 32), and DirectX 12 (28 vs 25) benchmarks.

Q: Is the T600 more power efficient?

A: Yes. The T600 has a TDP of 40 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the P2000 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Does the Quadro P2000 have more memory?

A: Yes, the P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the T600 has 4 GB of GDDR6. However, the T600's memory bandwidth is higher at 160.0 GB/s versus 140.2 GB/s.

Q: Which card has better 2D desktop performance?

A: The T600 wins the Passmark G2D test with a score of 756, a 20.8% lead over the P2000's 626.

Q: Are there any major architectural feature differences?

A: The T600 is based on Turing architecture on a 12 nm process, while the P2000 is based on Pascal on a 16 nm process. The T600 has dramatically better FP16 performance at 3.418 TFLOPS compared to the P2000's 47.36 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA T600 | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 |

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

| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 16 nm |

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

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 22.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 735 MHz | 1076 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1335 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 140.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 40 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 42.72 GPixel/s | 59.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 53.40 GTexel/s | 94.72 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.709 TFLOPS | 3.031 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 3.418 TFLOPS (2:1) | 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 40 W | 75 W |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 250 W |

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

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a clear distinction between these two cards. Choose the NVIDIA T600 if your work is centered on modern compute APIs. The 38.5% lead in OpenCL and 8.5% lead in Vulkan are decisive for applications that rely on these interfaces. Its superior FP16 performance, lower power draw, and better 2D performance make it the more forward-looking and efficient option for a workstation handling current software stacks.

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 if your workloads are dominated by legacy DirectX titles or tasks that depend on raw rasterization throughput. Its wins in DirectX 9, 10, and 12, combined with an 18.1% lead in Passmark GPU Compute and a 6.9% lead in G3D, show it is the stronger card for traditional OpenGL and older CAD applications that do not benefit from Turing's architectural improvements. The P2000 also offers slightly more memory at 5 GB, which can be a factor for holding larger textures or datasets. The choice comes down to whether the software you run is built for the future or the past. The T600 is the better pick for new and updated applications; the P2000 is the better pick for established, compute-heavy software that uses its larger core count effectively.