GeForce GTX 260 vs Quadro M2000M

Place in the ranking	491	753
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.16
Power efficiency	11.21	1.20
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GM107	GT200
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	3 December 2015 (9 years ago)	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449

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 cores	640	192
Core clock speed	1029 MHz	576 MHz
Boost clock speed	1098 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	43.92	36.86
Floating-point processing power	1.405 TFLOPS	0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	28
TMUs	40	64

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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	2x 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	896 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	448 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	999 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	111.9 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	No outputs	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Display Port	1.2	no data
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	5.0	+

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.

M2000M 8.96
+183%

GTX 260 3.17

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.

M2000M 3446
+183%

GTX 260 1217

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	35 +192%	12−14 −192%
4K	12 +200%	4−5 −200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	37.42
4K	no data	112.25

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
Elden Ring	24−27 +213%	8−9 −213%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +200%	12−14 −200%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
Valorant	30−35 +220%	10−11 −220%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
Dota 2	20 +186%	7−8 −186%
Elden Ring	24−27 +213%	8−9 −213%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +217%	12−14 −217%
Fortnite	50−55 +194%	18−20 −194%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +200%	12−14 −200%
Grand Theft Auto V	30 +200%	10−11 −200%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +192%	24−27 −192%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +200%	9−10 −200%
Valorant	30−35 +220%	10−11 −220%
World of Tanks	130−140 +193%	45−50 −193%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
Dota 2	30−35 +220%	10−11 −220%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +217%	12−14 −217%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +200%	12−14 −200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +192%	24−27 −192%
Valorant	30−35 +220%	10−11 −220%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Elden Ring	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +207%	14−16 −207%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
World of Tanks	65−70 +210%	21−24 −210%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Valorant	21−24 +214%	7−8 −214%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Dota 2	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%
Elden Ring	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +189%	9−10 −189%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Fortnite	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Valorant	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%

This is how M2000M and GTX 260 compete in popular games:

M2000M is 192% faster in 1080p
M2000M is 200% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.96	3.17
Recency	3 December 2015	16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	896 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	182 Watt

M2000M has a 182.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 230.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.