NVIDIA GeForce 920M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 holds the higher average benchmark score at 3898, while the NVIDIA GeForce 920M trails at 3287. The Quadro 2000 sits in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 920M sits in the 20th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw OpenCL performance?

A: In GeekBench OpenCL, the Quadro 2000 scores 3898 versus 3725 for the GeForce 920M, a 4.6% advantage for the Quadro. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded between the two cards.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU based on benchmark scores?

A: The Quadro 2000's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, which scores 3883, just 0.4% behind. For the GeForce 920M, the closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M at 3316, which trails by 0.9%. The GeForce 920M also sits 2.4% ahead of the GeForce GT 640, which scores 3210.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The GeForce 920M leads in both metrics. Its pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000, and its texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Quadro 2000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 920M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the GeForce 920M supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.175 listed. The Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support recorded. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to different use cases for each card. The Quadro 2000 is the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads where raw OpenCL throughput matters, as it beats the GeForce 920M by 4.6% in GeekBench OpenCL and posts a higher average benchmark score (3898 versus 3287). Its higher memory bandwidth (41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) and larger memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit) suggest it is better suited to tasks that move large amounts of data.

The GeForce 920M, however, is the more modern architecture with a smaller process node (28 nm versus 40 nm) and higher raw compute throughput in fill-rate tests. Its pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s outpace the Quadro 2000 by 52.6% and 52.7%, respectively. It also carries double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB) and a much lower power draw of 33 W versus 62 W.

For users running OpenCL benchmarks or professional compute tasks, the Quadro 2000 is the pick based on recorded scores. For users prioritizing lower power consumption, higher fill rates, or Vulkan support, the GeForce 920M is the better fit. Neither card is ideal for modern gaming at high settings, given their low percentiles (23rd and 20th) and end-of-life production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison recorded in the database is GeekBench OpenCL. Here, the Quadro 2000 scores 3898 against the GeForce 920M's 3725, a delta of 4.6% in favor of the Quadro. This is a modest but clear win, indicating that the older Fermi-based professional card retains an edge in general-purpose compute tasks.

The GeForce 920M, however, counters in theoretical throughput metrics. Its FP32 output of 732.7 GFLOPS is 52.6% higher than the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s also outstrip the Quadro 2000's 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s, respectively. These numbers suggest that while the Quadro wins in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, the GeForce 920M has higher peak arithmetic and rasterization capacity on paper.

The GeForce 920M also offers Vulkan support (version 1.2.175), which the Quadro 2000 lacks entirely, giving it an additional API option for modern workloads. The Quadro 2000 counters with a significantly higher memory bandwidth: 41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a 188.9% advantage. This bandwidth gap is the largest single specification difference between the two cards.

In terms of nearest rivals, the Quadro 2000 sits very close to its competition: it is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, and 0.8% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D. The GeForce 920M is 0.9% behind the GeForce GT 730M, 1.4% behind the Intel HD Graphics 530, and 3% behind the Intel HD Graphics P4600, while sitting 2.4% ahead of the GeForce GT 640. This shows that both cards are clustered tightly among their peers, with no decisive generational leap between them.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every major specification category. The Quadro 2000 uses a 40 nm process node, while the GeForce 920M uses a 28 nm node, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are similar but not identical: 1,170 million for the Quadro versus 1,020 million for the GeForce. Die size differs markedly, with the Quadro at 238 mm² and the GeForce at 87 mm², leading to transistor densities of 4.9M per mm² and 11.7M per mm², respectively.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The Quadro 2000 has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 920M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the Quadro's memory runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the GeForce's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GeForce has a base and boost clock of 954 MHz, while the Quadro lists no base or boost clock.

Compute units vary: the Quadro has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the GeForce has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro's pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s and texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s, while the GeForce produces 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 732.7 GFLOPS for the GeForce.

Power and physical design differ significantly. The Quadro draws 62 W and is a single-slot card with a 178 mm length and 111 mm height, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The GeForce 920M draws 33 W and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no length, height, or suggested PSU data. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GeForce uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the GeForce is marked "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile-oriented design.

Release dates place the Quadro 2000 in December 2010 and the GeForce 920M in March 2015. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is the Quadro Kepler. The GeForce 920M's predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile. The Quadro 2000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the GeForce 920M has no launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro 2000 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip. The GeForce 920M uses the Kepler 2.0 architecture with the GK208B chip. This represents a full architectural generation gap, with Fermi dating to NVIDIA's professional Quadro Fermi line (x000 generation) and Kepler 2.0 belonging to the GeForce 900M generation.

The manufacturing process improvements are clear: the GeForce 920M's 28 nm node allows for a much smaller die (87 mm² versus 238 mm²) while packing a similar transistor count (1,020 million versus 1,170 million). The resulting transistor density nearly triples, from 4.9M per mm² on the Quadro to 11.7M per mm² on the GeForce.

Shader architecture differs substantially. The GeForce 920M packs 384 shading units, exactly double the Quadro 2000's 192. Despite this, the GeForce's ROP count is halved, at 8 versus 16, which explains why its pixel rate advantage is not larger. Both cards have 32 TMUs.

The GeForce 920M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro 2000's specification list. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, indicating that the Quadro's Fermi architecture received API updates to remain compatible with modern interfaces despite its age.

Memory architecture reflects different priorities: the Quadro prioritizes bandwidth with GDDR5 and a 128-bit bus, while the GeForce prioritizes capacity with 2 GB of DDR3 on a narrower 64-bit bus. The GeForce also reports a boost clock of 954 MHz, whereas the Quadro has no boost clock listed, suggesting a fixed clock design.

The GeForce 920M operates as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and a 33 W TDP, while the Quadro 2000 is a discrete single-slot card with no power connectors but a 62 W TDP. The GeForce connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, a newer interface generation than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16, but with half the lane count. These architectural choices align with the GeForce 920M's mobile, power-conscious positioning versus the Quadro 2000's workstation, bandwidth-focused role.