
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti
Popular choices:

Quadro 2000
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti
2023Why buy it
- ✅+2289.3% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $200 less on MSRP ($399 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 3487% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 56.8 vs 1.6 G3D/$ ($399 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 1 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌158.1% higher power demand at 160W vs 62W.
- ❌34.8% longer card at 240mm vs 178mm.
Quadro 2000
2010Why buy it
- ✅Draws 62W instead of 160W, a 98W reduction.
- ✅Measures 178mm instead of 240mm, a 62mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (948 vs 22,651).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 1 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2010-era hardware with 1 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌50.1% HIGHER MSRP$599 MSRPvs$399 MSRP
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti
2023Quadro 2000
2010Why buy it
- ✅+2289.3% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $200 less on MSRP ($399 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 3487% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 56.8 vs 1.6 G3D/$ ($399 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 1 GB).
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 62W instead of 160W, a 98W reduction.
- ✅Measures 178mm instead of 240mm, a 62mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌158.1% higher power demand at 160W vs 62W.
- ❌34.8% longer card at 240mm vs 178mm.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (948 vs 22,651).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 1 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2010-era hardware with 1 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌50.1% HIGHER MSRP$599 MSRPvs$399 MSRP
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce RTX 4060 Ti better than Quadro 2000?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Quadro 2000 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
Games Benchmarks
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 177 FPS | 17 FPS |
| medium | 162 FPS | 10 FPS |
| high | 142 FPS | 6 FPS |
| ultra | 124 FPS | 3 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 7 FPS |
| medium | 118 FPS | 4 FPS |
| high | 101 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 93 FPS | 1 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 93 FPS | 4 FPS |
| medium | 79 FPS | 2 FPS |
| high | 66 FPS | 1 FPS |
| ultra | 59 FPS | 1 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 425 FPS | 38 FPS |
| medium | 359 FPS | 20 FPS |
| high | 292 FPS | 14 FPS |
| ultra | 237 FPS | 10 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 270 FPS | 12 FPS |
| medium | 229 FPS | 7 FPS |
| high | 186 FPS | 5 FPS |
| ultra | 154 FPS | 4 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 117 FPS | 4 FPS |
| medium | 95 FPS | 2 FPS |
| high | 77 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 60 FPS | 1 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 855 FPS | 43 FPS |
| medium | 693 FPS | 34 FPS |
| high | 609 FPS | 28 FPS |
| ultra | 510 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 660 FPS | 32 FPS |
| medium | 527 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 452 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 16 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 447 FPS | 21 FPS |
| medium | 355 FPS | 17 FPS |
| high | 308 FPS | 14 FPS |
| ultra | 255 FPS | 11 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 775 FPS | 43 FPS |
| medium | 639 FPS | 34 FPS |
| high | 558 FPS | 22 FPS |
| ultra | 492 FPS | 14 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 613 FPS | 6 FPS |
| medium | 503 FPS | 4 FPS |
| high | 435 FPS | 3 FPS |
| ultra | 378 FPS | 2 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 375 FPS | 4 FPS |
| medium | 322 FPS | 3 FPS |
| high | 298 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 255 FPS | 1 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce RTX 4060 Ti and Quadro 2000

GeForce RTX 4060 Ti
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti
The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 18 2023. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 2310 MHz to 2535 MHz. It has 4352 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 160W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 34 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 22,651 points. Launch price was $399.

Quadro 2000
Quadro 2000
The Quadro 2000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 24 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 625 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 62W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 948 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti scores 22,651 versus the Quadro 2000's 948 — the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti leads by 2289.3%. The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti is built on Ada Lovelace while the Quadro 2000 uses Fermi, both on 5 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 4,352 (GeForce RTX 4060 Ti) vs 192 (Quadro 2000). Raw compute: 22.06 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 4060 Ti) vs 0.48 TFLOPS (Quadro 2000).
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 22,651+2289% | 948 |
| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Fermi |
| Process Node | 5 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 4352+2167% | 192 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 22.06 TFLOPS+4496% | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48+200% | 16 |
| TMUs | 136+325% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 4.3 MB+1620% | 0.25 MB |
| L2 Cache | 32 MB+12700% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti is support for DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The Quadro 2000 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Quadro 2000 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | DLSS 3.5 Super Resolution | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | Yes (DLSS 3.5) | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro 2000 has 1 GB. The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 32 MB (GeForce RTX 4060 Ti) vs 0.25 MB (Quadro 2000) — the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+700% | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 32 MB+12700% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (GeForce RTX 4060 Ti) vs 11_0 (Quadro 2000). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+11% | 11_0 |
| Max Displays | 4+100% | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 8th Gen NVENC (GeForce RTX 4060 Ti) vs NVENC 1st Gen (Quadro 2000). Decoder: 5th Gen NVDEC vs VP4.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 8th Gen NVENC | NVENC 1st Gen |
| Decoder | 5th Gen NVDEC | VP4 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti draws 160W versus the Quadro 2000's 62W — a 88.3% difference. The Quadro 2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 550W (GeForce RTX 4060 Ti) vs 350W (Quadro 2000). Power connectors: 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 240mm vs 178mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 160W | 62W-61% |
| Recommended PSU | 550W | 350W-36% |
| Power Connector | 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 240mm | 178mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 141.6+825% | 15.3 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti launched at $399 MSRP, while the Quadro 2000 launched at $599. The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti costs 33.4% less ($200 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 56.8 (GeForce RTX 4060 Ti) vs 1.6 (Quadro 2000) — the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti offers 3450% better value. The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | Quadro 2000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $399-33% | $599 |
| Performance per Dollar | 56.8+3450% | 1.6 |
| Codename | AD106 | GF106 |
| Release | May 18 2023 | December 24 2010 |
| Ranking | #59 | #902 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












