CPU
GPU
Quadro 2000
Popular choices:
Quadro CX
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.
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 Quadro 2000 is positioned at rank 314 and the Quadro CX is on rank 383, so the Quadro 2000 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro 2000
Performance Per Dollar Quadro CX
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro 2000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro CX offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro 2000 | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro 2000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro 2000 holds the technical lead. Priced at $25 (vs $500), it costs 95% less, resulting in a 1902.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro 2000 | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1902.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($25) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) |
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.
Path of Exile 2
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro 2000 and Quadro CX
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.
Quadro CX
The Quadro CX is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 602 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 947 points. Launch price was $1,999.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro 2000 scores 948 and the Quadro CX reaches 947 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro 2000 is built on Fermi while the Quadro CX uses Tesla 2.0, both on 40 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro 2000) vs 192 (Quadro CX). Raw compute: 0.48 TFLOPS (Quadro 2000) vs 0.4623 TFLOPS (Quadro CX).
| Feature | Quadro 2000 | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 948 | 947 |
| Architecture | Fermi | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 192 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.48 TFLOPS+4% | 0.4623 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 24+50% |
| TMUs | 32 | 64+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB+33% | 192 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro 2000 | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The Quadro 2000 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro CX has 4 GB. The Quadro CX offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (Quadro 2000) vs 192 KB (Quadro CX) — the Quadro 2000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro 2000 | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 4 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB+33% | 192 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11_0 (Quadro 2000) vs 11.1 (10_0) (Quadro CX). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | Quadro 2000 | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11_0 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1st Gen (Quadro 2000) vs None (Quadro CX). Decoder: VP4 vs PureVideo HD.
| Feature | Quadro 2000 | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1st Gen | None |
| Decoder | VP4 | PureVideo HD |
| Codecs | — | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro 2000 draws 62W versus the Quadro CX's 150W — a 83% difference. The Quadro 2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro 2000) vs 350W (Quadro CX). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 178mm vs 267mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | Quadro 2000 | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 62W-59% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 178mm | 267mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 80 |
| Perf/Watt | 15.3+143% | 6.3 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro 2000 launched at $599 MSRP and currently averages $25, while the Quadro CX launched at $1999 and now averages $500. The Quadro 2000 costs 95% less ($475 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 37.9 (Quadro 2000) vs 1.9 (Quadro CX) — the Quadro 2000 offers 1894.7% better value. The Quadro 2000 is the newer GPU (2010 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro 2000 | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $599-70% | $1999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25-95% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 37.9+1895% | 1.9 |
| Codename | GF106 | GT200B |
| Release | December 24 2010 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #902 | #901 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro 2000 and Quadro CX
