Quadro T2000 Mobile vs GeForce GTX 965M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 965M with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

GTX 965M
2015
4 GB GDDR5
9.83

T2000 Mobile outperforms GTX 965M by a whopping 110% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking449263
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameN16E-GS, N16E-GRN19P-Q3
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date5 January 2015 (9 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores10241024
CUDA cores1024no data
Core clock speed944 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speed950 / 1151 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown60 Watt
Texture fill rate73.60114.2
Floating-point performance2.355 gflops3.656 gflops

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data
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 speed2500 MHz8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s128.0 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 outputsNo outputs
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-
G-SYNC support+-

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+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-
Ansel+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
Vulkan1.11.2.131
CUDA+7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 965M 9.83
T2000 Mobile 20.69
+110%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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 965M 3793
T2000 Mobile 7985
+111%

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 965M 7322
T2000 Mobile 13524
+84.7%

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 HD46
−107%
95−100
+107%
1440p24
−108%
50−55
+108%
4K23
−95.7%
45−50
+95.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−120%
30−35
+120%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 31
−48.4%
45−50
+48.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Battlefield 5 49
−38.8%
65−70
+38.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
−110%
40−45
+110%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−120%
30−35
+120%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−109%
45−50
+109%
Far Cry New Dawn 40
−37.5%
55−60
+37.5%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−95.4%
120−130
+95.4%
Hitman 3 18−20
−116%
40−45
+116%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−83.3%
95−100
+83.3%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−129%
70−75
+129%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45
−22.2%
55−60
+22.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 69
+0%
65−70
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−47.6%
90−95
+47.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 41
−12.2%
45−50
+12.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Battlefield 5 37
−83.8%
65−70
+83.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
−110%
40−45
+110%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−120%
30−35
+120%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−109%
45−50
+109%
Far Cry New Dawn 29
−89.7%
55−60
+89.7%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−95.4%
120−130
+95.4%
Hitman 3 18−20
−116%
40−45
+116%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−83.3%
95−100
+83.3%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−129%
70−75
+129%
Red Dead Redemption 2 33
−66.7%
55−60
+66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
−116%
65−70
+116%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 86
+87%
45−50
−87%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−47.6%
90−95
+47.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 13
−254%
45−50
+254%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
−110%
40−45
+110%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−120%
30−35
+120%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−109%
45−50
+109%
Forza Horizon 4 28
−354%
120−130
+354%
Hitman 3 18−20
−116%
40−45
+116%
Horizon Zero Dawn 23
−330%
95−100
+330%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
−116%
65−70
+116%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
−156%
45−50
+156%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−47.6%
90−95
+47.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 32
−71.9%
55−60
+71.9%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
−111%
40−45
+111%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
−113%
30−35
+113%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10
−110%
21−24
+110%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−217%
18−20
+217%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−130%
21−24
+130%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−170%
110−120
+170%
Hitman 3 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18
−133%
40−45
+133%
Metro Exodus 14−16
−179%
35−40
+179%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−258%
40−45
+258%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−167%
24−27
+167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−95.2%
120−130
+95.2%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21
−61.9%
30−35
+61.9%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
−122%
20−22
+122%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Hitman 3 6−7
−167%
16−18
+167%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
−155%
100−110
+155%
Metro Exodus 8−9
−175%
21−24
+175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3
−300%
12−14
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−175%
10−12
+175%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−175%
10−12
+175%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%
Forza Horizon 4 14
−100%
27−30
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10
−80%
18−20
+80%

This is how GTX 965M and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T2000 Mobile is 107% faster in 1080p
  • T2000 Mobile is 108% faster in 1440p
  • T2000 Mobile is 96% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 965M is 87% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 354% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 965M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • T2000 Mobile is ahead in 70 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.83 20.69
Recency 5 January 2015 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm

T2000 Mobile has a 110.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 965M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 965M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T2000 Mobile 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 965M
GeForce GTX 965M
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
Quadro T2000 Mobile

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.


4 107 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 965M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 315 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Mobile 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.