OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,580VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):95 W

NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop
6.3/10

Overall score

Score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components

40%

5.1

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

5.1

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 84% of graphics cards
5.1

Value for money

Value for money
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

2.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
5.1

Technical score

Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

44%

3.4

Performance

24%

3.4

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

8.1

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 82%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-rtx-a2000-laptop
nvidia-rtx-a2000-laptop
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,580
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop

Based on 180 owners sharing their experience in online comments

58%positive24%mixed18%negative

Owners value strong performance and efficient power use, while high temperatures are the most common frustration.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report GPU and memory temperatures reaching 86 to 100 C at stock fan speed, especially in small cases, and say a fan boost, new pads, or repasting helps.19
  • Some owners report games crashing, systems shutting down under load, or freezing on Lenovo and other small PCs, especially with low-wattage power adapters.12
  • Some owners say benchmark and game performance is weak, such as about 20 fps in Heaven when power draw is limited, and some call it slower than newer cards.8
  • Owners say the card is capped at about 70 W, and that overclocking or shunt modding can raise output but adds risk to the card and slot.6
  • Some owners say NVIDIA drivers fail to install or conflict with other drivers, and installing the Quadro driver first helped one user.5
  • Some owners report hashrates of only about 38 to 41 MH/s, and say memory chip type (Micron vs Samsung) can lower results by about 6 MH/s.4

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop

Technical score
Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

44%

3.4

Performance

24%

3.4

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

8.1

Connectivity

5.1
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

2.2

Price

5.1
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
5,284 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 5,284 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 84.2% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
2,932 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 2,932 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 78.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
9,515 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 9,515 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 85.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
4,266 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 4,266 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 85.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
9.3 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 9.3 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 74.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
192 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 192 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 87.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
14,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 14,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 69.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
0
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 0 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
95 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 95 W, which is lower than that of 89.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
95 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 95 W under peak load, which is lower than 90.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
95 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 95 W, which is lower than that of 90.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
65 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 55.8% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (95 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    95 W vs 215 W
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 56.8% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (95 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    95 W vs 220 W
  • Supports virtual GPU
    This graphics card supports virtual GPU features, the average graphics card does not.
  • Uses hybrid cooling
    This graphics card uses hybrid cooling, the average graphics card does not.
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (Unlimited vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    Unlimited vs 8
  • 56.8% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (95 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    95 W vs 220 W
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports virtual GPU
    This graphics card supports virtual GPU features, the average graphics card does not.
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (Unlimited vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    Unlimited vs 8
  • 55.8% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (95 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    95 W vs 215 W
  • 56.8% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (95 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    95 W vs 220 W
  • Uses hybrid cooling
    This graphics card uses hybrid cooling, the average graphics card does not.
  • 56.8% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (95 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    95 W vs 220 W
  • 32.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,687 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,687 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 20 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    20 vs 40
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 36.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,215 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,215 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 104 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (80 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    80 vs 184
  • 65.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (129 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    129 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 20 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    20 vs 40
  • 34.6% lower sentiment score
    5.1 vs 7.8
  • 46% worse value for money
    NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.08 vs 7.4).
    5.08 vs 7.41
  • 3.04x more expensive
    NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,580 vs £520).
    £1,580 vs £520
  • 32.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,687 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,687 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 20 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    20 vs 40
  • 36.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,215 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,215 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 104 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (80 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    80 vs 184
  • 65.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (129 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    129 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 20 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    20 vs 40
  • 52% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (77.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    77.38 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 58.8% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (9.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    9.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 16 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (48 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    48 vs 64
  • 64 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (80 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    80 vs 144
  • 58% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (9,515 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    9,515 points vs 22,638 points
  • 64.2% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (5,284 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    5,284 points vs 14,779 points
  • 67.9% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (2,932 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    2,932 points vs 9,148 points
  • 2 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2021 vs 2023).
    April 2021
    2021 vs 2023
  • 64.7% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (4,266 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    4,266 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 70.7% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (8.6 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    8.64 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 75% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.12 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 57.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (192 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    192 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 14.3% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 60% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (8 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    8 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • 62% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (8,700 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    8,700 million vs 22,900 million
  • 3 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (0 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    0 vs 3
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (5 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    5 vs 6
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 13 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (80 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    80 °C vs 67 °C
  • 30 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (30 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    30 dB vs 0 dB
  • 5 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    100 °C vs 95 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop

  • Exceptional energy efficiency with low power draw (35-95W TGP)
  • Strong performance for 1080p professional workflows and gaming
  • Supports modern features like DLSS and real-time Ray Tracing
  • Runs relatively cool and quiet in most mobile workstation designs
  • Ideal for thin-and-light workstations needing ISV-certified drivers

What customers don't like about NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop

  • Performance is often limited by low TGP (Total Graphics Power) settings in slim laptops
  • VRAM capacity (typically 4GB or 8GB) can be restrictive for complex 3D rendering or 4K tasks
  • Significant performance drop-off when moving from 1080p to 4K resolutions
  • Expensive compared to consumer GeForce equivalents like the RTX 3050 Ti Laptop
  • Lacks Error Correction Code (ECC) memory in some laptop configurations

Verdict

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop GPU is a professional workstation graphics card based on the Ampere architecture (GA107 chip), featuring 2,560 CUDA cores, 80 Tensor Cores, and 20 second-generation RT Cores. Typically configured with 4GB or 8GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, it operates within a versatile TGP range of 35W to 95W and supports advanced features like DLSS and real-time ray tracing. Its main pros include exceptional power efficiency for thin-and-light workstations and reliable performance in CAD, 3D modeling, and AI-augmented applications, comparable to an RTX 3050 Ti laptop GPU. However, cons include limited VRAM for complex 4K workflows and performance that can be heavily throttled by lower manufacturer-set power limits (TGP) in compact laptop designs.

Compare NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA RTX A2000 Laptop and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found