RTX A4000 vs Quadro M2000M

Place in the ranking	492	59
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	11.21	24.88
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GM107	GA104
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	3 December 2015 (9 years ago)	12 April 2021 (3 years ago)

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	6144
Core clock speed	1029 MHz	735 MHz
Boost clock speed	1098 MHz	1560 MHz
Number of transistors	1,870 million	17,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	140 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.92	299.5
Floating-point processing power	1.405 TFLOPS	19.17 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	96
TMUs	40	192
Tensor Cores	no data	192
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	48

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 4.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	448.0 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	4x DisplayPort 1.4a
Display Port	1.2	no data

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	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
CUDA	5.0	8.6

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

RTX A4000 50.60
+465%

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

RTX A4000 19452
+464%

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.

M2000M 9810

RTX A4000 121332
+1137%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

M2000M 9564

RTX A4000 111324
+1064%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

M2000M 10438

RTX A4000 124547
+1093%

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 −443%	190−200 +443%
4K	12 −442%	65−70 +442%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −459%	95−100 +459%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −459%	95−100 +459%
Elden Ring	24−27 −460%	140−150 +460%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −452%	160−170 +452%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −459%	95−100 +459%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −459%	95−100 +459%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −456%	200−210 +456%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −442%	130−140 +442%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −442%	130−140 +442%
Valorant	30−35 −463%	180−190 +463%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −452%	160−170 +452%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −459%	95−100 +459%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −459%	95−100 +459%
Dota 2	20 −450%	110−120 +450%
Elden Ring	24−27 −460%	140−150 +460%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −453%	210−220 +453%
Fortnite	50−55 −447%	290−300 +447%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −456%	200−210 +456%
Grand Theft Auto V	30 −433%	160−170 +433%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −442%	130−140 +442%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 −400%	350−400 +400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −442%	130−140 +442%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −456%	150−160 +456%
Valorant	30−35 −463%	180−190 +463%
World of Tanks	130−140 −430%	700−750 +430%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −452%	160−170 +452%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −459%	95−100 +459%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −459%	95−100 +459%
Dota 2	30−35 −463%	180−190 +463%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −453%	210−220 +453%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −456%	200−210 +456%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 −400%	350−400 +400%
Valorant	30−35 −463%	180−190 +463%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−12 −445%	60−65 +445%
Elden Ring	12−14 −442%	65−70 +442%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 −445%	60−65 +445%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −458%	240−250 +458%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −400%	35−40 +400%
World of Tanks	65−70 −438%	350−400 +438%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −459%	95−100 +459%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −450%	55−60 +450%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −463%	90−95 +463%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −445%	60−65 +445%
Valorant	21−24 −445%	120−130 +445%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%
Dota 2	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%
Elden Ring	5−6 −440%	27−30 +440%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −438%	140−150 +438%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −463%	45−50 +463%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Dota 2	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −445%	60−65 +445%
Fortnite	9−10 −456%	50−55 +456%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −445%	60−65 +445%
Valorant	9−10 −456%	50−55 +456%

This is how M2000M and RTX A4000 compete in popular games:

RTX A4000 is 443% faster in 1080p
RTX A4000 is 442% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.96	50.60
Recency	3 December 2015	12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	140 Watt

M2000M has 154.5% lower power consumption.

RTX A4000, on the other hand, has a 464.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while RTX A4000 is a workstation one.

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