Quadro 2000M vs Quadro M2000

Place in the ranking	441	891
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.77	0.28
Power efficiency	9.51	2.52
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GM206	GF106
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	8 April 2016 (8 years ago)	13 January 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$437.75	$46.56

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro M2000 has 1246% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.

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	768	192
Core clock speed	796 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1163 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,940 million	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.82	17.60
Floating-point processing power	1.786 TFLOPS	0.4224 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	48	32

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	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	201 mm	no data
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	128 Bit	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1653 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 106 GB/s	28.8 GB/s
Shared memory	no 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 Connectors	4x DisplayPort	No outputs
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no 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.

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.2	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 M2000 10.38
+414%

Quadro 2000M 2.02

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 3992
+413%

Quadro 2000M 778

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 14584
+327%

Quadro 2000M 3414

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
+386%

Quadro 2000M 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 HD

190−200
+414%

−414%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

2.30
−83.1%

1.26

+83.1%

Quadro 2000M has 83% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Elden Ring	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Elden Ring	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Fortnite	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
World of Tanks	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
World of Tanks	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	0−1	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Fortnite	0−1	0−1
Valorant	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:

Quadro M2000 is 414% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.38	2.02
Recency	8 April 2016	13 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	55 Watt

Quadro M2000 has a 413.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 2000M, on the other hand, has 36.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while Quadro 2000M 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.