GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro 2000M vs NVIDIA GeForce 920M

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M and NVIDIA GeForce 920M represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by four years of GPU evolution. The data shows a single benchmark comparison where the GeForce 920M wins decisively, but the underlying architectural differences tell a more nuanced story about what each GPU was designed to accomplish. The Quadro 2000M targets professional workstation tasks with its Fermi architecture, while the GeForce 920M brings Kepler 2.0 efficiency to consumer laptops. Neither GPU holds a commanding position in the current GPU landscape, the Quadro sits at the 21st percentile while the GeForce 920M ranks at the 20th percentile, but their design philosophies diverge sharply.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data available provides only one direct head-to-head comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the GeForce 920M wins with a score of 3725 against the Quadro 2000M's 3434, a delta of 7.8%. This makes the GeForce 920M the clear winner in raw compute performance as measured by OpenCL. The GeForce 920M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 2849, a test the Quadro 2000M does not have on record, suggesting the Kepler part has broader API support for modern workloads.

However, the Quadro 2000M's positioning in its nearest rival list reveals a different kind of strength. It lands between the GeForce GT 740 (3431, just 0.1% behind) and the GeForce 920MX (3528, 2.7% ahead of the Quadro). This clustering shows the Quadro 2000M holds its own against a desktop-class GT 740 and comes within striking distance of the more recent 920MX. The Quadro's professional lineage likely targets CAD, engineering simulation, and content creation, where certified drivers and precision matter more than raw OpenCL numbers. The data indicates the Quadro 2000M was built for stability in professional applications, whereas the GeForce 920M prioritizes general-purpose compute and consumer workloads.

The GeForce 920M, by contrast, shows a 2.4% advantage over the GeForce GT 640 (3210) and trails the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) by 1.4%. Its performance profile suggests it handles everyday consumer tasks, video playback, light gaming, and general productivity, with reasonable competence. The Quadro's 1.3% edge over the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389) and 3.1% over the HD 530 places it in a similar performance tier, but the architectural focus differs fundamentally.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip built on Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is a relatively large die at 238 mm², housing 1,170 million transistors for a density of 4.9M per mm². Fermi was NVIDIA's compute-focused architecture, designed to bring GPGPU capabilities to a wider audience. The Quadro 2000M belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M generation (x000M series), released in January 2011, and follows the Quadro FX Mobile as its predecessor.

The GeForce 920M uses the GK208B chip on Kepler 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. Its die is dramatically smaller at 87 mm², with 1,020 million transistors packed into a density of 11.7M per mm², more than double the transistor density of the Fermi chip. The GeForce 920M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation and arrived in March 2015, succeeding the GeForce 800M and preceding the GeForce 10 Mobile series.

The process node difference is substantial: 40 nm versus 28 nm. This explains the GeForce 920M's lower TDP of 33 W compared to the Quadro's 55 W, despite the GeForce having more shading units. Kepler 2.0 was designed to be more power-efficient and to deliver better performance per watt than Fermi. The foundry remains TSMC for both, but the architectural philosophies diverge: Fermi focused on compute flexibility with its 192 shading units, while Kepler 2.0 reorganized the pipeline with 384 shading units to extract more parallel throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GeForce 920M scores 3725 and the Quadro 2000M scores 3434. This gives the GeForce a 7.8% advantage, a meaningful margin in compute workloads. The GeForce 920M's OpenCL score exceeds the Quadro's by 291 points, which is not a trivial gap, it suggests the Kepler architecture's additional shading units (384 versus 192) translate into real-world compute benefits.

Looking at the rival landscape, the Quadro 2000M's 3434 OpenCL score places it just ahead of the GeForce GT 740 (3431, a 0.1% difference) and the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, a 1.3% edge). These are extremely tight margins, indicating the Quadro 2000M performs at a level comparable to a modest desktop GPU or a professional integrated solution. The Quadro trails the GeForce 920MX by 2.7%, which is notable because the 920MX is itself a more refined version of the 920M. The GeForce 920M's score of 3725, meanwhile, beats the Quadro by 7.8% but still falls behind the 920MX, the data does not include a direct 920M versus 920MX comparison, but the 920MX's 3528 average score sits between the two, suggesting the 920M is actually the stronger performer of the two mobile GeForces.

The GeForce 920M's Vulkan score of 2849 adds another dimension. Vulkan is a modern graphics API that Fermi-era GPUs cannot support, the Quadro 2000M lists no Vulkan capability. This means the GeForce 920M can run Vulkan-based applications and games, while the Quadro 2000M is locked out of that ecosystem entirely. For longevity and software compatibility, this is a significant advantage for the GeForce 920M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node moves from 40 nm (Quadro) to 28 nm (GeForce), and the die shrinks from 238 mm² to 87 mm² while transistor counts drop from 1,170 million to 1,020 million. Transistor density increases from 4.9M per mm² to 11.7M per mm², a clear sign of manufacturing maturity.

Shading units double from 192 to 384, while TMUs stay identical at 32. ROPs drop from 16 to 8, which is counterintuitive but reflects Kepler's different rasterization strategy. Pixel rate improves from 4.400 GPixel/s to 7.632 GPixel/s, and texture rate jumps from 17.60 GTexel/s to 30.53 GTexel/s. FP32 compute rises from 422.4 GFLOPS to 732.7 GFLOPS, a 73% improvement.

Memory configurations differ substantially. Both use 2 GB of DDR3, but the Quadro has a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the GeForce uses a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s, exactly half the bandwidth. The GeForce 920M compensates with a higher base clock of 954 MHz (the Quadro lists no base clock) and its increased shading unit count. TDP drops from 55 W to 33 W, and the slot width changes from MXM Module to IGP. The bus interface shifts from MXM-A (3.0) to PCIe 3.0 x8. The GeForce 920M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro lists no Vulkan support; both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 920M scores 3725 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M's 3434, giving the GeForce a 7.8% advantage.

Q: How does the Quadro 2000M compare to the GeForce GT 740?

A: The Quadro 2000M scores 3434 in OpenCL, while the GeForce GT 740 scores 3431, a difference of just 0.1%, making them effectively equivalent in this benchmark.

Q: Does the GeForce 920M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GeForce 920M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro 2000M does not list Vulkan support in its specifications.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a 128-bit memory bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the GeForce 920M uses a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GeForce 920M has 384 shading units, exactly double the Quadro 2000M's 192 shading units. The GeForce also has a higher FP32 compute rating at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS.

Q: How do the TDP ratings compare?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the GeForce 920M draws only 33 W, making the GeForce significantly more power-efficient despite its higher compute throughput.

The Verdict

The data points to the GeForce 920M as the stronger GPU for general compute and modern software support. Its 7.8% OpenCL advantage over the Quadro 2000M is backed by double the shading units, a more advanced 28 nm process, and Vulkan compatibility. The GeForce 920M also achieves this with a 22 W lower TDP, which is remarkable given its higher performance ceiling. For consumers running OpenCL-accelerated applications or Vulkan-based games, the GeForce 920M is the clear choice.

The Quadro 2000M's case rests on its professional positioning and memory bandwidth. Its 128-bit bus provides double the bandwidth of the GeForce 920M, which could benefit memory-intensive professional workloads that the OpenCL benchmark does not fully capture. The Quadro's 16 ROPs versus the GeForce's 8 ROPs also suggests different rasterization strengths. However, the data shows the Quadro 2000M performs within 3% of the GeForce 920MX and within 0.1% of the GT 740, placing it in a competitive tier for its era.

The production status for both is end-of-life, and neither sits above the 21st percentile of all GPUs. For professional users who relied on certified drivers and the Quadro's stable platform, the 2000M served its purpose, but the benchmark results indicate the GeForce 920M delivers better raw performance and modern API support. The GPU landscape moved decisively toward the Kepler architecture's efficiency, and the Quadro 2000M remains a relic of the Fermi era. The GeForce 920M is the better overall GPU by the numbers, but the Quadro's higher bandwidth and ROP count suggest it was optimized for a different, narrower set of workloads that the available benchmarks do not fully represent.