Quadro FX 770M vs FirePro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M2000 and Quadro FX 770M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M2000 outperforms FX 770M by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1099 | 1228 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 2.28 | 1.11 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Turks | G96 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 (12 years ago) | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $527 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 16 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-II |
| Form factor | chip-down | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type 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 |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
- Passmark
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 9
+125%
| 4−5
−125%
|
| Full HD | 16
+100%
| 8−9
−100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 65.88 |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+14.3%
|
27−30
−14.3%
|
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+47.1%
|
16−18
−47.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+14.3%
|
27−30
−14.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+14.3%
|
27−30
−14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how FirePro M2000 and FX 770M compete in popular games:
- FirePro M2000 is 125% faster in 900p
- FirePro M2000 is 100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the FirePro M2000 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro M2000 is ahead in 26 tests (84%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (16%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.95 | 0.49 |
| Recency | 1 July 2012 | 14 August 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 35 Watt |
FirePro M2000 has a 93.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 6.1% lower power consumption.
The FirePro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 770M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
