Quadro CX vs Quadro 2000D
Quadro CX
Popular choices:
Quadro 2000D
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 CX is positioned at rank 383 and the Quadro 2000D is on rank 311, so the Quadro 2000D offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro CX
Performance Per Dollar Quadro 2000D
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro 2000D is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro CX.
| Insight | Quadro CX | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| 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 (267mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro 2000D offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro 2000D holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $500), it costs 92% less, resulting in a 1193.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro CX | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1193.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) | ✅More affordable ($40) |
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 Quadro 2000D
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.
Quadro 2000D
The Quadro 2000D is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 5 2011. 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: 980 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro CX scores 947 and the Quadro 2000D reaches 980 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro CX is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Quadro 2000D uses Fermi, both on 55 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro CX) vs 192 (Quadro 2000D). Raw compute: 0.4623 TFLOPS (Quadro CX) vs 0.48 TFLOPS (Quadro 2000D).
| Feature | Quadro CX | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 947 | 980+3% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Fermi |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 192 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.4623 TFLOPS | 0.48 TFLOPS+4% |
| ROPs | 24+50% | 16 |
| TMUs | 64+100% | 32 |
| L2 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB+33% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro CX | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 192 KB (Quadro CX) vs 256 KB (Quadro 2000D) — the Quadro 2000D has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro CX | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB+33% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro CX draws 150W versus the Quadro 2000D's 62W — a 83% difference. The Quadro 2000D is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro CX) vs 350W (Quadro 2000D). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro CX | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 62W-59% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 6.3 | 15.8+151% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro CX launched at $1999 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the Quadro 2000D launched at $599 and now averages $40. The Quadro 2000D costs 92% less ($460 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 1.9 (Quadro CX) vs 24.5 (Quadro 2000D) — the Quadro 2000D offers 1189.5% better value. The Quadro 2000D is the newer GPU (2011 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro CX | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1999 | $599-70% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $40-92% |
| Performance per Dollar | 1.9 | 24.5+1189% |
| Codename | GT200B | GF106 |
| Release | November 11 2008 | October 5 2011 |
| Ranking | #901 | #892 |
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 Quadro 2000D
