CPU
GPU
RTX A2000
Popular choices:
Quadro GP100
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar RTX A2000
Performance Per Dollar Quadro GP100
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RTX A2000 uses modern memory architecture. The RTX A2000 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro GP100 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro GP100 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (16 GB vs 8 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RTX A2000.
| Insight | RTX A2000 | Quadro GP100 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🔮Strong Longevity (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The RTX A2000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $320 versus $1,335 for the Quadro GP100, it costs 76% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 309.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | RTX A2000 | Quadro GP100 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+309.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($320) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($1,335) |
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 RTX A2000 and Quadro GP100
RTX A2000
The RTX A2000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 10 2021. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 562 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 3328 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 70W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 26 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 13,464 points. Launch price was $449.
Quadro GP100
The Quadro GP100 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 1 2016. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1304 MHz to 1442 MHz. It has 3584 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 235W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 13,710 points.
Graphics Performance
The RTX A2000 scores 13,464 and the Quadro GP100 reaches 13,710 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The RTX A2000 is built on Ampere while the Quadro GP100 uses Pascal, both on 8 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 3,328 (RTX A2000) vs 3,584 (Quadro GP100). Raw compute: 7.987 TFLOPS (RTX A2000) vs 10.34 TFLOPS (Quadro GP100). Boost clocks: 1200 MHz vs 1442 MHz.
| Feature | RTX A2000 | Quadro GP100 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 13,464 | 13,710+2% |
| Architecture | Ampere | Pascal |
| Process Node | 8 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 3328 | 3584+8% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 7.987 TFLOPS | 10.34 TFLOPS+29% |
| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 1442 MHz+20% |
| ROPs | 48 | 96+100% |
| TMUs | 104 | 224+115% |
| L1 Cache | 3.3 MB+154% | 1.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 4 MB+33% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RTX A2000 | Quadro GP100 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The RTX A2000 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro GP100 has 16 GB. The Quadro GP100 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 4096-bit. L2 Cache: 3 MB (RTX A2000) vs 4 MB (Quadro GP100) — the Quadro GP100 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RTX A2000 | Quadro GP100 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB | 16 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 4096-bit+3100% |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 4 MB+33% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (RTX A2000) vs 12 (Quadro GP100). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 4.
| Feature | RTX A2000 | Quadro GP100 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 6+50% | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (RTX A2000) vs NVENC 4th gen (Quadro GP100). Decoder: 5th Gen NVDEC vs NVDEC 3rd gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (RTX A2000) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,MPEG-2,VC-1,VP8,VP9 (Quadro GP100).
| Feature | RTX A2000 | Quadro GP100 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 7th Gen NVENC | NVENC 4th gen |
| Decoder | 5th Gen NVDEC | NVDEC 3rd gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) | H.264,H.265/HEVC,MPEG-2,VC-1,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The RTX A2000 draws 70W versus the Quadro GP100's 235W — a 108.2% difference. The RTX A2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (RTX A2000) vs 500W (Quadro GP100). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 167mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | RTX A2000 | Quadro GP100 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 70W-70% | 235W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 167mm | 267mm |
| Height | 68mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C-6% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 192.3+230% | 58.3 |
Value Analysis
The RTX A2000 launched at $450 MSRP and currently averages $320, while the Quadro GP100 launched at $7000 and now averages $1335. The RTX A2000 costs 76% less ($1015 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 42.1 (RTX A2000) vs 10.3 (Quadro GP100) — the RTX A2000 offers 308.7% better value. The RTX A2000 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2016).
| Feature | RTX A2000 | Quadro GP100 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $450-94% | $7000 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $320-76% | $1335 |
| Performance per Dollar | 42.1+309% | 10.3 |
| Codename | GA106 | GP100 |
| Release | August 10 2021 | October 1 2016 |
| Ranking | #186 | #178 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on RTX A2000 and Quadro GP100
