Quadro M2000M vs Quadro P6000

Place in the ranking	107	492
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.11	no data
Power efficiency	11.00	11.20
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	GP102	GM107
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 October 2016 (8 years ago)	3 December 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$5,999	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 cores	3840	640
Core clock speed	1506 MHz	1029 MHz
Boost clock speed	1645 MHz	1098 MHz
Number of transistors	11,800 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	394.8	43.92
Floating-point processing power	12.63 TFLOPS	1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs	96	16
TMUs	240	40

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	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2" (5.1 cm)	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 8-pin	None
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	384 Bit	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	24 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1127 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 432 GB/s	80 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	1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort	No outputs
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data
Multi-display synchronization	Quadro Sync II	no data
Display Port	no data	1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	-	+
ECC (Error Correcting Code)	+	no data
3D Vision Pro	+	+
Mosaic	+	+
High-Performance Video I/O6	+	no data
nView Display Management	no data	+
nView Desktop Management	+	no data
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
CUDA	6.1	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.

Quadro P6000 39.99
+346%

M2000M 8.96

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 P6000 15373
+346%

M2000M 3446

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 P6000 64167
+554%

M2000M 9810

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro P6000 77990
+715%

M2000M 9564

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro P6000 47462
+355%

M2000M 10438

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	150−160 +329%	35 −329%
4K	50−55 +317%	12 −317%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	39.99	no data
4K	119.98	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Elden Ring	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Dota 2	20 +0%	20 +0%
Elden Ring	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Fortnite	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	30 +0%	30 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
World of Tanks	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Elden Ring	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
World of Tanks	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Elden Ring	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Fortnite	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Valorant	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

This is how Quadro P6000 and M2000M compete in popular games:

Quadro P6000 is 329% faster in 1080p
Quadro P6000 is 317% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	39.99	8.96
Recency	1 October 2016	3 December 2015
Maximum RAM amount	24 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	55 Watt

Quadro P6000 has a 346.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

M2000M, on the other hand, has 354.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P6000 is a workstation card while Quadro M2000M 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.