NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 6 month(s) later
• Around 30% higher core clock speed: 1395 MHz vs 1076 MHz
• Around 15% higher boost clock speed: 1695 MHz vs 1480 MHz
• 5869.9x more texture fill rate: 556.0 GTexel/s vs 94.72 GTexel / s
• 13.7x more pipelines: 10496 vs 768
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 8 nm vs 16 nm
• 4.8x more maximum memory size: 24 GB vs 5 GB
• 3.8x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 26668 vs 6957
• Around 68% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 1060 vs 630
• 8.3x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 191142 vs 22896
• 6.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 690.619 vs 113.416
• 5.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 7585.258 vs 1414.794
• 9.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 62.614 vs 6.736
• 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 209.424 vs 81.206
• 5.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 2441.384 vs 417.823
• 3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 33398 vs 10251
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3713 vs 3681
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3354 vs 3316
• 3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 33398 vs 10251
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3713 vs 3681
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3354 vs 3316
• Around 73% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 5118 vs 2958

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro P2000

• 4.7x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 350 Watt
• 5.7x more memory clock speed: 7008 MHz vs 1219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective)

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P2000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	26668 6957
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1060 630
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	191142 22896
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	690.619 113.416
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7585.258 1414.794
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	62.614 6.736
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	209.424 81.206
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2441.384 417.823
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	33398 10251
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3713 3681
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3354 3316
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	33398 10251
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3713 3681
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3354 3316
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	5118 2958

Compare specifications (specs)