NVS 510 vs Quadro M2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000 and NVS 510, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro M2000
2016
4 GB 128-bit, 75 Watt
10.34
+478%

M2000 outperforms NVS 510 by a whopping 478% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking441922
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.630.10
Power efficiency9.453.51
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGM206GK107
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date8 April 2016 (8 years ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$437.75 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro M2000 has 3530% better value for money than NVS 510.

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 cores768192
Core clock speed796 MHz797 MHz
Boost clock speed1163 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,940 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate55.8212.75
Floating-point processing power1.786 TFLOPS0.306 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs4816

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length201 mm160 mm
Width1" (2.5 cm)1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 BitDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 106 GB/s28.51 GB/s

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 DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displays4no data

Supported technologies

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

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 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
CUDA5.23.0

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.

Quadro M2000 10.34
+478%
NVS 510 1.79

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 3985
+477%
NVS 510 691

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 14562
+755%
NVS 510 1704

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 14286
+665%
NVS 510 1868

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
+922%
NVS 510 1282

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.34 1.79
Recency 8 April 2016 23 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 35 Watt

Quadro M2000 has a 477.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

NVS 510, on the other hand, has 114.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.


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 NVS 510
NVS 510

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.


3.8 210 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 60 votes

Rate NVS 510 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.