Nvidia Quadro T2000 Vs Rtx 3000

RTX 3000 Mobile vs T2000 Mobile

Cost now 2393$

Games supported 96%

Cost now 2221$

Games supported 80%

General info

Comparing of graphics card architecture, marketplace segment, value for coin and other full general parameters.

Identify in performance rating	139	263
Value for money	3.91	2.00
Architecture	Turing (2018−2021)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	N19E-Q1	N19P-Q3
Market place segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	27 May 2019 (3 years ago)	27 May 2019 (iii years ago)
Current price	$2393	$2221

Value for coin

To get the index we compare the characteristics of video cards and their relative prices.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base of operations clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and adding speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you lot accept to consider their benchmark and gaming examination results. Note that ability consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1920	1024
Core clock speed	945 MHz	1575 MHz
Boost clock speed	1380 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	ten,800 1000000	four,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	12 nm
Thermal design ability (TDP)	lxxx Watt	threescore Watt
Texture fill up charge per unit	198.seven	114.ii

Compatibility, dimensions and requirements

Data on Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile and Quadro T2000 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing i. For notebook video cards it'due south notebook size, connectedness slot and bus, if the video carte du jour is inserted into a slot instead of beingness soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16

Memory

Parameters of retentiveness installed: its type, size, omnibus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Notation that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Retentiveness type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	half dozen GB	4 GB
Retention passenger vehicle width	192 Fleck	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	14000 MHz	8000 MHz
Retentiveness bandwidth	448.0 GB/s	128.0 GB/s
Shared retentiveness	-	-

Video outputs and ports

Types and number of video connectors nowadays on the reviewed GPUs. As a dominion, data in this section is precise simply for desktop reference ones (and so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA fries). OEM manufacturers may change the number and blazon of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
G-SYNC support	+	no data

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will testify useful if y'all need some particular technology for your purposes.

API support

APIs supported, including item versions of those APIs.

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.v	6.v
OpenGL	iv.six	iv.6
OpenCL	1.2	ane.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	7.5	seven.5

Benchmark performance

Non-gaming criterion functioning comparison. Annotation that overall benchmark operation is measured in points in 0-100 range.

Overall score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you lot find some perceived inconsistencies, feel gratuitous to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems speedily.

RTX 3000 Mobile 33.30

+80.seven%

Passmark
3DMark xi Performance GPU

This is probably the most ubiquitous criterion, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. Information technology gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, eleven and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more than tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Criterion coverage: 26%

RTX 3000 Mobile 10116

+26.vii%

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark past Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, ane being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken send, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being washed in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

RTX 3000 Mobile 19879

+47%

Gaming functioning

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS

Here are the average frames per 2d in a big set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full Hd	93	no information
4K	88	no information

Pop games

Full HD
Low Preset
Full Hard disk drive
Medium Preset
Full Hard disk
High Preset
Full HD
Ultra Preset
1440p
High Preset
1440p
Ultra Preset
4K

High Preset
4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35

eighteen−20

Assassin'due south Creed Odyssey	77 +328%	18−20 −328%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +83.3%	18−xx −83.three%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +83.3%	18−twenty −83.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.iii%
Cyberpunk 2077	thirty−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.iii%
Far Weep 5	30−35 +83.iii%	18−20 −83.3%
Far Weep New Dawn	91 +406%	18−20 −406%
Forza Horizon iv	30−35 +83.3%	xviii−20 −83.3%
Hitman three	30−35 +83.3%	xviii−20 −83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +83.3%	xviii−20 −83.iii%
Scarlet Dead Redemption 2	xxx−35 +83.3%	eighteen−20 −83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100 +456%	18−xx −456%
Lookout man Dogs: Legion	xxx−35 +83.iii%	18−20 −83.3%

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	62 +244%	18−20 −244%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +83.three%	18−20 −83.3%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +83.iii%	18−20 −83.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +83.3%	xviii−20 −83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +83.3%	18−xx −83.iii%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +83.3%	18−twenty −83.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	86 +378%	18−20 −378%
Forza Horizon iv	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.3%
Hitman three	30−35 +83.3%	xviii−20 −83.3%
Horizon Zilch Dawn	30−35 +83.three%	xviii−twenty −83.3%
Metro Exodus	thirty−35 +83.three%	18−20 −83.iii%
Ruddy Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +83.iii%	18−20 −83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	84 +367%	eighteen−20 −367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Chase	109 +506%	xviii−twenty −506%
Watch Dogs: Legion	thirty−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.iii%

Assassinator's Creed Odyssey	39 +117%	18−20 −117%
Assassin'due south Creed Valhalla	30−35 +83.3%	eighteen−20 −83.3%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +83.iii%	eighteen−20 −83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +83.three%	xviii−20 −83.three%
Far Weep 5	thirty−35 +83.3%	xviii−twenty −83.iii%
Far Cry New Dawn	77 +328%	18−xx −328%
Forza Horizon 4	thirty−35 +83.3%	18−twenty −83.three%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	56 +211%	eighteen−20 −211%
Watch Dogs: Legion	xxx−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.3%

Telephone call of Duty: Modernistic Warfare	30−35 +83.three%	18−20 −83.3%
Hitman iii	30−35 +83.3%	eighteen−20 −83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	xxx−35 +83.3%	xviii−xx −83.3%
Metro Exodus	thirty−35 +83.3%	18−xx −83.iii%
Red Expressionless Redemption ii	30−35 +83.3%	18−xx −83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +83.iii%	18−twenty −83.3%

Assassinator'south Creed Odyssey	xxx−35 +83.3%	xviii−20 −83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +83.3%	18−twenty −83.iii%
Battleground 5	30−35 +83.iii%	18−20 −83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +83.three%	18−20 −83.iii%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.3%
Far Weep New Dawn	xxx−35 +83.three%	18−20 −83.three%
Forza Horizon four	30−35 +83.3%	eighteen−20 −83.3%
Lookout Dogs: Legion	xxx−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.three%

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +83.three%	18−20 −83.3%
Hitman 3	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	xxx−35 +83.3%	xviii−20 −83.3%
Metro Exodus	xxx−35 +83.three%	18−twenty −83.iii%
Cherry-red Dead Redemption 2	xxx−35 +83.3%	xviii−20 −83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +83.three%	eighteen−xx −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Chase	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.3%

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	xxx−35 +83.3%	eighteen−20 −83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	thirty−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.three%
Battleground five	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	xxx−35 +83.3%	eighteen−twenty −83.three%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.iii%
Far Weep New Dawn	30−35 +83.3%	eighteen−20 −83.3%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +83.three%	18−20 −83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +83.iii%	18−xx −83.3%

Advantages and disadvantages

Performance rating	33.30	18.43
Memory motorbus width	192	128
Pipelines / CUDA cores	1920	1024
Memory bandwidth	448	128
Thermal pattern power (TDP)	lxxx Watt	60 Watt

Judging past the results of synthetic and gaming tests, Technical City recommends

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

since it shows better functioning.

Should yous still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Cast your vote

Do you remember we are right or mistaken in our pick? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

Competitors of Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile by AMD

Nosotros believe that the nearest equivalent to Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile from AMD is Radeon Pro 5600M, which is slower past seven% and lower by 19 positions in our rating.

Here are some closest AMD rivals to Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile:

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile 100

Competitors of Quadro T2000 Mobile by AMD

We believe that the nearest equivalent to Quadro T2000 Mobile from AMD is Radeon Pro Vega xx, which is slower past 6% and lower past 10 positions in our rating.

Here are some closest AMD rivals to Quadro T2000 Mobile:

NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile 100

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with functioning more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User rating

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, likewise as charge per unit them yourself.

Rate NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile on a scale of ane to v:

Rate NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile on a calibration of i to 5:

Questions and comments

Here yous tin ask a question nearly this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.

Graphics settings

Screen resolution

FPS