Tesla T4 vs Quadro M2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000 and Tesla T4, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

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

Tesla T4 outperforms M2000 by a whopping 169% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking436196
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.45no data
Power efficiency9.5527.54
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM206TU104
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date8 April 2016 (8 years ago)13 September 2018 (6 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 cores7682560
Core clock speed796 MHz585 MHz
Boost clock speed1163 MHz1590 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate55.82254.4
Floating-point processing power1.786 TFLOPS8.141 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs48160
Tensor Coresno data320
Ray Tracing Coresno data40

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 3.0 x16
Length201 mm168 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 BitGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 106 GB/s320.0 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 DisplayPortNo outputs
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 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA5.27.5

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
Tesla T4 27.84
+169%

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
Tesla T4 10744
+169%

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 14526
Tesla T4 61276
+322%

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
Tesla T4 70627
+439%

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 27.84
Recency 8 April 2016 13 September 2018
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 70 Watt

Tesla T4 has a 169.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 7.1% lower power consumption.

The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 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 Tesla T4
Tesla T4

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.


3.8 200 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 226 votes

Rate Tesla T4 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.