P106-100 vs Quadro T2000 Max-Q

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The P106-100 is positioned at rank 43 and the Quadro T2000 Max-Q is on rank 2, so the Quadro T2000 Max-Q offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar P106-100

#23

Intel Arc Pro B60

MSRP: $500|Avg: $450

93%

#24

Radeon PRO W7600

MSRP: $599|Avg: $599

93%

#25

RTX 2000 Ada Generation

MSRP: $625|Avg: $750

93%

#28

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

499%

#43

P106-100

MSRP: $224|Avg: $30

100%

#48

Quadro K3100M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $400

96%

#50

Quadro K5000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $509

95%

#51

Radeon PRO W6300

MSRP: $200|Avg: $150

94%

#52

Quadro K4100M

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $261

94%

#58

Quadro K2000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $30

85%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro T2000 Max-Q

#1

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

127%

#2

Quadro T2000 Max-Q

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The Quadro T2000 Max-Q uses modern memory architecture. The Quadro T2000 Max-Q likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The P106-100 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the P106-100.

Insight	P106-100	Quadro T2000 Max-Q
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-5%)	✅Leading raw performance (+5%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021))	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	Standard Size (250mm)	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro T2000 Max-Q remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

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 7800X3D 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.

P106-100 Benchmark Check

Quadro T2000 Max-Q Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of P106-100 and Quadro T2000 Max-Q

P106-100

The P106-100 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 12 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1607 MHz to 1733 MHz. It has 1920 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,628 points.

Quadro T2000 Max-Q

The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 27 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1200 MHz to 1620 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,959 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the P106-100 scores 6,628 versus the Quadro T2000 Max-Q's 6,959 — the Quadro T2000 Max-Q leads by 5%. The P106-100 is built on Pascal while the Quadro T2000 Max-Q uses Turing, both on 16 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,920 (P106-100) vs 1,024 (Quadro T2000 Max-Q). Raw compute: 6.655 TFLOPS (P106-100) vs 3.318 TFLOPS (Quadro T2000 Max-Q). Boost clocks: 1733 MHz vs 1620 MHz.

Feature	P106-100	Quadro T2000 Max-Q
G3D Mark Score	6,628	6,959+5%
Architecture	Pascal	Turing
Process Node	16 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	1920+88%	1024
Compute (TFLOPS)	6.655 TFLOPS+101%	3.318 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1733 MHz+7%	1620 MHz
ROPs	64+100%	32
TMUs	120+88%	64
L1 Cache	0.7 MB	1 MB+43%
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	P106-100	Quadro T2000 Max-Q
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR6. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (P106-100) vs 1 MB (Quadro T2000 Max-Q) — the P106-100 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	P106-100	Quadro T2000 Max-Q
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12_1 (P106-100) vs 12.1 (Quadro T2000 Max-Q). Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 4.

Feature	P106-100	Quadro T2000 Max-Q
DirectX	12_1	12.1
Max Displays	0	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 6th Gen (P106-100) vs NVENC 7.0 (Quadro T2000 Max-Q). Decoder: NVDEC 3rd Gen vs PureVideo HD VP9.

Feature	P106-100	Quadro T2000 Max-Q
Encoder	NVENC 6th Gen	NVENC 7.0
Decoder	NVDEC 3rd Gen	PureVideo HD VP9
Codecs	—	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The P106-100 draws 75W versus the Quadro T2000 Max-Q's 40W — a 60.9% difference. The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (P106-100) vs 350W (Quadro T2000 Max-Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 250mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.