GeForce GTX 760 vs Quadro M2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000 with GeForce GTX 760, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M2000
2016
4 GB 128-bit, 75 Watt
9.68

GTX 760 outperforms M2000 by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking442403
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.744.23
Power efficiency9.525.05
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGM206GK104
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date8 April 2016 (8 years ago)25 June 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$437.75 $249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

GTX 760 has 13% 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 cores7681152
Core clock speed796 MHz980 MHz
Boost clock speed1163 MHz1033 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt170 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data97 °C
Texture fill rate55.8299.07
Floating-point processing power1.786 TFLOPS2.378 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs4896

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).

Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length201 mm241 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width1" (2.5 cm)2-slot
Minimum recommended system powerno data500 Watt
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 6-pin
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 type128 BitGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 106 GB/s192.2 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort
Multi monitor supportno data4 displays
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

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

Blu Ray 3D-+
3D Gaming-+
3D Vision-+
PhysX-+
3D Vision Live-+
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.3
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
CUDA5.2+

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 M2000 9.68
GTX 760 11.64
+20.2%

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 M2000 3990
GTX 760 4798
+20.3%

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.

Quadro M2000 14589
+2.1%
GTX 760 14290

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.

Quadro M2000 14412
+4.5%
GTX 760 13794

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.

Quadro M2000 13100
+22.6%
GTX 760 10683

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.

Quadro M2000 34
GTX 760 44
+29.4%

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 HD55−60
−23.6%
68
+23.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.96
−117%
3.66
+117%
  • GTX 760 has 117% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
World of Tanks 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
World of Tanks 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and GTX 760 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 760 is 24% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.68 11.64
Recency 8 April 2016 25 June 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 170 Watt

Quadro M2000 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 126.7% lower power consumption.

GTX 760, on the other hand, has a 20.2% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GTX 760 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 760 is a desktop 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 Quadro M2000
Quadro M2000
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
GeForce GTX 760

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 216 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 2151 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 760 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.