Quadro M2000 vs GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1060 Mobile outperforms M2000 by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 296 | 448 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 28.01 | 4.11 |
| Power efficiency | 16.91 | 9.50 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | GM206 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $237.11 | $437.75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1060 Mobile has 582% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
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 | 1280 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1708 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 133.6 | 55.82 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.275 TFLOPS | 1.786 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 48 |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 201 mm |
| Width | no data | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | Up to 106 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | DP 1.43, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | 4x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| HDCP | 2.2 | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 5.2 |
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:
| Full HD | 69
+97.1%
| 35−40
−97.1%
|
| 1440p | 47
+95.8%
| 24−27
−95.8%
|
| 4K | 30
+114%
| 14−16
−114%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.44
+264%
| 12.51
−264%
|
| 1440p | 5.04
+262%
| 18.24
−262%
|
| 4K | 7.90
+296%
| 31.27
−296%
|
- GTX 1060 Mobile has 264% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1060 Mobile has 262% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1060 Mobile has 296% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 73
+109%
|
35−40
−109%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
+106%
|
18−20
−106%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 51
+113%
|
24−27
−113%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 96
+92%
|
50−55
−92%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 32
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75
+114%
|
35−40
−114%
|
| Fortnite | 177
+96.7%
|
90−95
−96.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102
+104%
|
50−55
−104%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 67
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 78
+95%
|
40−45
−95%
|
| Valorant | 136
+94.3%
|
70−75
−94.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 32
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 81
+103%
|
40−45
−103%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 222
+102%
|
110−120
−102%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+92.7%
|
55−60
−92.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+94.3%
|
35−40
−94.3%
|
| Fortnite | 105
+90.9%
|
55−60
−90.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 91
+102%
|
45−50
−102%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 74
+111%
|
35−40
−111%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 67
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 69
+97.1%
|
35−40
−97.1%
|
| Valorant | 134
+91.4%
|
70−75
−91.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+103%
|
35−40
−103%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+96.7%
|
60−65
−96.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+113%
|
30−33
−113%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 71
+103%
|
35−40
−103%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 52
+92.6%
|
27−30
−92.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Valorant | 72
+106%
|
35−40
−106%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 81
+103%
|
40−45
−103%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+91.4%
|
70−75
−91.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+100%
|
85−90
−100%
|
| Valorant | 133
+90%
|
70−75
−90%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 53
+96.3%
|
27−30
−96.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
+105%
|
21−24
−105%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50
+108%
|
24−27
−108%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Valorant | 117
+95%
|
60−65
−95%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 28
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+113%
|
30−33
−113%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 23
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
This is how GTX 1060 Mobile and Quadro M2000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1060 Mobile is 97% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1060 Mobile is 96% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1060 Mobile is 114% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.73 | 10.39 |
| Recency | 15 August 2016 | 8 April 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 1060 Mobile has a 89.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro M2000, on the other hand, has 6.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro M2000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
