GeForce GTX 280M vs Quadro 2000M

Place in the ranking	884	978
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.28	no data
Power efficiency	2.56	1.39
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GF106	G92
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	13 January 2011 (13 years ago)	3 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$46.56	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 cores	192	128
Core clock speed	550 MHz	585 MHz
Number of transistors	1,170 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.60	37.44
Floating-point processing power	0.4224 TFLOPS	0.3745 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	562
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	64

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	large
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	MXM-IV
SLI options	-	+
MXM Type	no data	MXM 3.0 Type-B

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	DDR3	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	Up to 950 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	61 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	HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGA
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

Power management

no data

8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/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.

Quadro 2000M 2.02
+35.6%

GTX 280M 1.49

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.

Quadro 2000M 778
+35.3%

GTX 280M 575

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.

Quadro 2000M 6634

GTX 280M 6672
+0.6%

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

37
+37%

27−30

−37%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

1.26

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +20%	14−16 −20%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +6.1%	30−35 −6.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +20%	14−16 −20%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +6.1%	30−35 −6.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +20%	14−16 −20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +6.1%	30−35 −6.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+25%

4−5

−25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how Quadro 2000M and GTX 280M compete in popular games:

Quadro 2000M is 37% faster in 1080p

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro 2000M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro 2000M is ahead in 38 tests (78%)
there's a draw in 11 tests (22%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.02	1.49
Recency	13 January 2011	3 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	75 Watt

Quadro 2000M has a 35.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 36.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 280M 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.