CPU
GPU
Quadro T2000
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1060
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 T2000 is positioned at rank #125 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 T2000
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1060 is significantly newer (2016 vs 2010). The GeForce GTX 1060 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro T2000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 38.3% 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 T2000.
| Insight | Quadro T2000 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-38.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+38.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 1060 holds the technical lead. Priced at $60 (vs $75), it costs 20% less, resulting in a 72.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro T2000 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+72.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) | ✅More affordable ($60) |
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.
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro T2000 and GeForce GTX 1060
Quadro T2000
The Quadro T2000 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: 7,279 points. Launch price was $599.
GeForce GTX 1060
The GeForce GTX 1060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 27 2016. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1607 MHz to 1733 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 180W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,064 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Quadro T2000 scores 7,279 versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 10,064 — the GeForce GTX 1060 leads by 38.3%. The Quadro T2000 is built on Fermi while the GeForce GTX 1060 uses Pascal, both on 40 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro T2000) vs 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060). Raw compute: 0.48 TFLOPS (Quadro T2000) vs 8.873 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060).
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,279 | 10,064+38% |
| Architecture | Fermi | Pascal |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 2560+1233% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.48 TFLOPS | 8.873 TFLOPS+1749% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 32 | 160+400% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 960 KB+275% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro T2000 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1060 has 6 GB. The GeForce GTX 1060 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Quadro T2000) vs 2 MB (GeForce GTX 1060) — the GeForce GTX 1060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 6 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+33% | 192-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Quadro T2000) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1060). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 7.0 (Quadro T2000) vs NVENC (Pascal) (GeForce GTX 1060). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP9 vs NVDEC (Pascal). Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro T2000) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060).
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 7.0 | NVENC (Pascal) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP9 | NVDEC (Pascal) |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro T2000 draws 62W versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 180W — a 97.5% difference. The Quadro T2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro T2000) vs 400W (GeForce GTX 1060). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 6-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 173mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 62W-66% | 180W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-13% | 400W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 6-pin |
| Length | 0mm | 173mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Perf/Watt | 117.4+110% | 55.9 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro T2000 launched at $600 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce GTX 1060 launched at $249 and now averages $60. The GeForce GTX 1060 costs 20% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 97.1 (Quadro T2000) vs 167.7 (GeForce GTX 1060) — the GeForce GTX 1060 offers 72.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 1060 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2010).
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $600 | $249-59% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75 | $60-20% |
| Performance per Dollar | 97.1 | 167.7+73% |
| Codename | GF106 | GP104 |
| Release | December 24 2010 | May 27 2016 |
| Ranking | #902 | #137 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro T2000 and GeForce GTX 1060
