GeForce GTX 780M vs Quadro M2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000 with GeForce GTX 780M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M2000
2016
4 GB 128-bit, 75 Watt
10.38
+4.7%

M2000 outperforms GTX 780M by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking442457
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.77no data
Power efficiency9.535.59
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGM206GK104
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date8 April 2016 (8 years ago)11 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$437.75 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 cores7681536
Core clock speed796 MHz823 MHz
Boost clock speed1163 MHz797 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt122 Watt
Texture fill rate55.82102.0
Floating-point processing power1.786 TFLOPS2.448 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs48128

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 supportno dataPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length201 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
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 GB4 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 106 GB/s160.0 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 DisplayPortNo outputs
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI-+
HDCP content protection-+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play-+
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 API
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.1
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 10.38
+4.7%
GTX 780M 9.91

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 3991
+4.7%
GTX 780M 3811

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 14581
+13.2%
GTX 780M 12879

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 14380
+13.3%
GTX 780M 12696

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
+37.4%
GTX 780M 9535

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 780M 37
+8.8%

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 HD65−70
+0%
65
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.73no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Elden Ring 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Elden Ring 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
World of Tanks 191
+0%
191
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Elden Ring 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
World of Tanks 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Elden Ring 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and GTX 780M compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.38 9.91
Recency 8 April 2016 11 May 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 122 Watt

Quadro M2000 has a 4.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 62.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M2000 and GeForce GTX 780M.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 780M is a notebook 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 780M
GeForce GTX 780M

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
4.1 111 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780M 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.