Quadro 2000D vs GeForce GT 755M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 755M with Quadro 2000D, including specs and performance data.

GT 755M
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
4.38
+73.1%

GT 755M outperforms 2000D by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking670827
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.15
Power efficiency6.092.84
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK107GF106
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date25 June 2013 (11 years ago)5 October 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores384192
Core clock speed980 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt62 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3620.00
Floating-point processing power0.7526 TFLOPS0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3232

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data178 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Standard memory configurationGDDR5no data
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1350 MHz650 MHz
Memory bandwidth86.4 GB/s41.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputs2x DVI
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 3840x2160no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 3840x2160no data
HDMI+-
HDCP content protection+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu-Ray 3D Support+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
3D Vision / 3DTV Play+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 API12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+2.1

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 755M 4.38
+73.1%
Quadro 2000D 2.53

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.

GT 755M 1688
+73%
Quadro 2000D 976

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GT 755M 4931
+25.6%
Quadro 2000D 3925

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

GT 755M 14
+16.7%
Quadro 2000D 12

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:

900p56
+86.7%
30−35
−86.7%
Full HD23
+91.7%
12−14
−91.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data49.92

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+81.3%
16−18
−81.3%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+83.3%
24−27
−83.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+81.3%
16−18
−81.3%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+83.3%
24−27
−83.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+81.3%
16−18
−81.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+83.3%
24−27
−83.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Hitman 3 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

This is how GT 755M and Quadro 2000D compete in popular games:

  • GT 755M is 87% faster in 900p
  • GT 755M is 92% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.38 2.53
Recency 25 June 2013 5 October 2011
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 62 Watt

GT 755M has a 73.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 24% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 755M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000D in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 755M is a notebook card while Quadro 2000D is a workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

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


NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M
GeForce GT 755M
NVIDIA Quadro 2000D
Quadro 2000D

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 76 votes

Rate GeForce GT 755M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 16 votes

Rate Quadro 2000D on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.