Quadro CX vs GeForce RTX 2060
Quadro CX
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 2060
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. The Quadro CX is positioned at rank #383 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro CX
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce RTX 2060 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2008). The GeForce RTX 2060 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro CX lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 2060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1390.4% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (6 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro CX.
| Insight | Quadro CX | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1390.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1390.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (6 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce RTX 2060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $120 versus $500 for the Quadro CX, it costs 76% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 6110% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro CX | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+6110%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) | ✅More affordable ($120) |
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro CX and GeForce RTX 2060
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.
GeForce RTX 2060
The GeForce RTX 2060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 7 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1365 MHz to 1680 MHz. It has 1920 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 160W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 30 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 14,114 points. Launch price was $349.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Quadro CX scores 947 versus the GeForce RTX 2060's 14,114 — the GeForce RTX 2060 leads by 1390.4%. The Quadro CX is built on Tesla 2.0 while the GeForce RTX 2060 uses Turing, both on 55 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro CX) vs 1,920 (GeForce RTX 2060). Raw compute: 0.4623 TFLOPS (Quadro CX) vs 6.451 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 2060).
| Feature | Quadro CX | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 947 | 14,114+1390% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 1920+900% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.4623 TFLOPS | 6.451 TFLOPS+1295% |
| ROPs | 24 | 48+100% |
| TMUs | 64 | 120+88% |
| L2 Cache | 0.19 MB | 3 MB+1479% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro CX | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | DLSS 2.0 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro CX comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 2060 has 6 GB. The GeForce RTX 2060 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 0.19 MB (Quadro CX) vs 3 MB (GeForce RTX 2060) — the GeForce RTX 2060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro CX | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 6 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 192-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 0.19 MB | 3 MB+1479% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (Quadro CX) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2) (GeForce RTX 2060). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.3. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro CX | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2)+8% |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6+39% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 4+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (Quadro CX) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce RTX 2060). Decoder: PureVideo HD vs NVDEC (Turing). Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro CX) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,VP8,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce RTX 2060).
| Feature | Quadro CX | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD | NVDEC (Turing) |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,H.265,VP9,VP8,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro CX draws 150W versus the GeForce RTX 2060's 160W — a 6.5% difference. The Quadro CX is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro CX) vs 500W (GeForce RTX 2060). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 8-pin. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 72.
| Feature | Quadro CX | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W-6% | 160W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-30% | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 8-pin |
| Length | 267mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 113mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | 72-10% |
| Perf/Watt | 6.3 | 88.2+1300% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro CX launched at $1999 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the GeForce RTX 2060 launched at $349 and now averages $120. The GeForce RTX 2060 costs 76% less ($380 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 1.9 (Quadro CX) vs 117.6 (GeForce RTX 2060) — the GeForce RTX 2060 offers 6089.5% better value. The GeForce RTX 2060 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro CX | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1999 | $349-83% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $120-76% |
| Performance per Dollar | 1.9 | 117.6+6089% |
| Codename | GT200B | TU106 |
| Release | November 11 2008 | January 7 2019 |
| Ranking | #901 | #168 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro CX and GeForce RTX 2060
