Quadro M2000M vs GeForce GTX 960

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 960 with Quadro M2000M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 960
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
15.79
+76.2%

GTX 960 outperforms M2000M by an impressive 76% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking342487
Place by popularity55not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.09no data
Power efficiency9.0211.17
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameGM206GM107
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date22 January 2015 (9 years ago)3 December 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

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 cores1024640
Core clock speed1127 MHz1029 MHz
Boost clock speed1178 MHz1098 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate75.3943.92
Floating-point processing power2.413 TFLOPS1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6440

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length241 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Recommended system power (PSU)400 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone
SLI options+-

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 amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth112 GB/s80 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Display Portno data1.2
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.44.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
CUDA+5.0

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.

GTX 960 15.79
+76.2%
M2000M 8.96

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.

GTX 960 6084
+76.2%
M2000M 3453

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

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

GTX 960 10768
+109%
M2000M 5143

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 960 30751
+49.5%
M2000M 20567

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 960 7916
+90.4%
M2000M 4157

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 960 49918
+67.5%
M2000M 29795

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.

GTX 960 18664
+90.9%
M2000M 9777

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GTX 960 20403
+114%
M2000M 9534

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

GTX 960 17784
+70.4%
M2000M 10438

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 HD62
+72.2%
36
−72.2%
4K28
+133%
12
−133%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.21no data
4K7.11no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+63.6%
21−24
−63.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+88.9%
27−30
−88.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+72%
24−27
−72%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+68.3%
60−65
−68.3%
Hitman 3 30−33
+76.5%
16−18
−76.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+58%
50−55
−58%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+92.9%
27−30
−92.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+72%
24−27
−72%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+70%
30−33
−70%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+33.3%
60−65
−33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+63.6%
21−24
−63.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+88.9%
27−30
−88.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+72%
24−27
−72%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+68.3%
60−65
−68.3%
Hitman 3 30−33
+76.5%
16−18
−76.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+58%
50−55
−58%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+92.9%
27−30
−92.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+72%
24−27
−72%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+70%
30−33
−70%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 131
+81.9%
72
−81.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+33.3%
60−65
−33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+63.6%
21−24
−63.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+68.3%
60−65
−68.3%
Hitman 3 30−33
+76.5%
16−18
−76.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+58%
50−55
−58%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+70%
30−33
−70%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+100%
14
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+33.3%
60−65
−33.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+72%
24−27
−72%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+76.5%
16−18
−76.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+118%
35−40
−118%
Hitman 3 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+68.4%
18−20
−68.4%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+190%
10−11
−190%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+68.4%
55−60
−68.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+73.3%
14−16
−73.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Hitman 3 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+119%
35−40
−119%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+66.7%
9
−66.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+90.9%
10−12
−90.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%

This is how GTX 960 and M2000M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 960 is 72% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 960 is 133% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 960 is 220% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 960 surpassed M2000M in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.79 8.96
Recency 22 January 2015 3 December 2015
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 55 Watt

GTX 960 has a 76.2% higher aggregate performance score.

M2000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 months, and 118.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 960 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 960 is a desktop card while Quadro M2000M is a mobile 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 GTX 960
GeForce GTX 960
NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
Quadro M2000M

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.


4 3811 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 500 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M 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.