NVIDIA Quadro P2000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. 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 Quadro P2000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 month(s) later
- Around 60% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 120 Watt
- Around 43% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 635 vs 444
- Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 vs 111.55
- Around 3% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1414.794 vs 1371.266
- 4.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 81.206 vs 19.803
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3681 vs 3654
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3681 vs 3654
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 6 February 2017 vs 15 August 2016 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 120 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 635 vs 444 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 vs 111.55 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 vs 1371.266 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 vs 19.803 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3681 vs 3654 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3681 vs 3654 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
- Around 40% higher core clock speed: 1506 MHz vs 1076 MHz
- Around 15% higher boost clock speed: 1708 MHz vs 1480 MHz
- Around 41% higher texture fill rate: 133.6 GTexel / s vs 94.72 GTexel / s
- Around 67% higher pipelines: 1280 vs 768
- Around 41% better floating-point performance: 4,275 gflops vs 3,031 gflops
- Around 20% higher maximum memory size: 6 GB vs 5 GB
- Around 14% higher memory clock speed: 8008 MHz vs 7008 MHz
- Around 18% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 8161 vs 6927
- Around 35% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 30868 vs 22889
- Around 26% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 8.49 vs 6.736
- Around 22% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 509.222 vs 417.823
- Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12645 vs 10251
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 vs 3316
- Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12645 vs 10251
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 vs 3316
- Around 24% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3671 vs 2958
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1506 MHz vs 1076 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1708 MHz vs 1480 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 133.6 GTexel / s vs 94.72 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1280 vs 768 |
Floating-point performance | 4,275 gflops vs 3,031 gflops |
Maximum memory size | 6 GB vs 5 GB |
Memory clock speed | 8008 MHz vs 7008 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 8161 vs 6927 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 30868 vs 22889 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.49 vs 6.736 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 509.222 vs 417.823 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12645 vs 10251 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 vs 3316 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12645 vs 10251 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 vs 3316 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3671 vs 2958 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
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 |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6927 | 8161 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 635 | 444 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 22889 | 30868 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 113.416 | 111.55 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1414.794 | 1371.266 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.736 | 8.49 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 81.206 | 19.803 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 417.823 | 509.222 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10251 | 12645 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3681 | 3654 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3316 | 3359 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10251 | 12645 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3681 | 3654 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3316 | 3359 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2958 | 3671 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Pascal | Pascal |
Code name | GP106 | GP106B |
Launch date | 6 February 2017 | 15 August 2016 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | $237.11 |
Place in performance rating | 403 | 406 |
Price now | $429.99 | $229.99 |
Type | Workstation | Laptop |
Value for money (0-100) | 19.44 | 49.49 |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 1708 MHz |
Core clock speed | 1076 MHz | 1506 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 3,031 gflops | 4,275 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 16 nm |
Pipelines | 768 | 1280 |
Texture fill rate | 94.72 GTexel / s | 133.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 120 Watt |
Transistor count | 4,400 million | 4,400 million |
CUDA cores | 1280 | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | DP 1.43, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI |
G-SYNC support | ||
HDCP | ||
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | 201 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 6 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 140.2 GB / s | 192 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 8008 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
Ansel | ||
CUDA | ||
DSR | ||
GameStream | ||
GPU Boost | ||
Multi Monitor | ||
Multi-Projection | ||
ShadowWorks | ||
Surround | ||
Virtual Reality | ||
VR Ready |