CPU
GPU
Quadro T2000
Popular choices:
Quadro P4000 (móvel)
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 T2000 is positioned at rank 125 and the Quadro P4000 (móvel) is on rank 149, so the Quadro T2000 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro T2000
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P4000 (móvel)
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro P4000 (móvel) is significantly newer (2017 vs 2010). The Quadro P4000 (móvel) 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 Quadro P4000 (móvel) is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro T2000.
| Insight | Quadro T2000 | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro T2000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro T2000 holds the technical lead. Priced at $75 (vs $290), it costs 74% less, resulting in a 275.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro T2000 | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+275.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($290) |
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 Quadro P4000 (móvel)
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.
Quadro P4000 (móvel)
The Quadro P4000 (móvel) is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 11 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1227 MHz to 1228 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,500 points. Launch price was $819.61.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro T2000 scores 7,279 and the Quadro P4000 (móvel) reaches 7,500 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro T2000 is built on Fermi while the Quadro P4000 (móvel) uses Pascal, both on 40 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro T2000) vs 1,792 (Quadro P4000 (móvel)). Raw compute: 0.48 TFLOPS (Quadro T2000) vs 4.398 TFLOPS (Quadro P4000 (móvel)).
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,279 | 7,500+3% |
| Architecture | Fermi | Pascal |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 1792+833% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.48 TFLOPS | 4.398 TFLOPS+816% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 32 | 112+250% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 672 KB+163% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Quadro T2000) vs 2 MB (Quadro P4000 (móvel)) — the Quadro P4000 (móvel) has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Quadro T2000) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro P4000 (móvel)). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 7.0 (Quadro T2000) vs NVENC (6th Gen) (Quadro P4000 (móvel)). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP9 vs NVDEC (3rd Gen). Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro T2000) vs H.264,H.265,VP9 (Quadro P4000 (móvel)).
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 7.0 | NVENC (6th Gen) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP9 | NVDEC (3rd Gen) |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.264,H.265,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro T2000 draws 62W versus the Quadro P4000 (móvel)'s 100W — a 46.9% difference. The Quadro T2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro T2000) vs 350W (Quadro P4000 (móvel)). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 0mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 62W-38% | 100W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 0mm |
| Height | 0mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 117.4+57% | 75.0 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro T2000 launched at $600 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Quadro P4000 (móvel) launched at $819 and now averages $290. The Quadro T2000 costs 74.1% less ($215 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 97.1 (Quadro T2000) vs 25.9 (Quadro P4000 (móvel)) — the Quadro T2000 offers 274.9% better value. The Quadro P4000 (móvel) is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2010).
| Feature | Quadro T2000 | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $600-27% | $819 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-74% | $290 |
| Performance per Dollar | 97.1+275% | 25.9 |
| Codename | GF106 | GP104 |
| Release | December 24 2010 | January 11 2017 |
| Ranking | #902 | #326 |
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 Quadro P4000 (móvel)
