NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile 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 RTX A2000 Mobile
- Around 23% higher boost clock speed: 1815 MHz vs 1480 MHz
- 1532.9x more texture fill rate: 145.2 GTexel/s vs 94.72 GTexel / s
- 3.3x more pipelines: 2560 vs 768
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 8 nm vs 16 nm
- Around 40% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 9765 vs 6957
- 2.5x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 56688 vs 22896
- Around 79% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 202.984 vs 113.416
- Around 51% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2138.158 vs 1414.794
- 2.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 16.498 vs 6.736
- Around 86% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 151.433 vs 81.206
- Around 75% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 729.947 vs 417.823
- Around 24% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12750 vs 10251
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3708 vs 3681
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3355 vs 3316
- Around 24% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12750 vs 10251
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3708 vs 3681
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3355 vs 3316
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Boost clock speed | 1815 MHz vs 1480 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 145.2 GTexel/s vs 94.72 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2560 vs 768 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm vs 16 nm |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9765 vs 6957 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 56688 vs 22896 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 202.984 vs 113.416 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2138.158 vs 1414.794 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 16.498 vs 6.736 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 151.433 vs 81.206 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 729.947 vs 417.823 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12750 vs 10251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3708 vs 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 vs 3316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12750 vs 10251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3708 vs 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 vs 3316 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro P2000
- Around 46% higher core clock speed: 1076 MHz vs 735 MHz
- Around 27% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 95 Watt
- Around 25% higher maximum memory size: 5 GB vs 4 GB
- 4.7x more memory clock speed: 7008 MHz vs 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective)
- Around 28% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 630 vs 493
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1076 MHz vs 735 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 95 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 5 GB vs 4 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz vs 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 630 vs 493 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 9765 | 6957 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 493 | 630 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 56688 | 22896 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 202.984 | 113.416 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2138.158 | 1414.794 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 16.498 | 6.736 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 151.433 | 81.206 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 729.947 | 417.823 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12750 | 10251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3708 | 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 3316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12750 | 10251 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3708 | 3681 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 3316 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2958 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Ampere | Pascal |
| Code name | GA106 | GP106 |
| Place in performance rating | 272 | 387 |
| Launch date | 6 February 2017 | |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | |
| Price now | $429.99 | |
| Type | Workstation | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 19.44 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1815 MHz | 1480 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 735 MHz | 1076 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 16 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 145.2 GFLOPS (1:64) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 9.293 TFLOPS (1:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 9.293 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 2560 | 768 |
| Pixel fill rate | 87.12 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 145.2 GTexel/s | 94.72 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 13250 million | 4,400 million |
| Floating-point performance | 3,031 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Length | 201 mm | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.2 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 140.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 7008 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile with others
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
ATIRadeon HD 4850 X2
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
AMDRadeon HD 8770 OEM
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
AMDRadeon R9 390X
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
NVIDIAQuadro P3200 Max-Q
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
NVIDIATesla T4
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile vs
NVIDIAT400 4GB
