NVIDIA GeForce 920MX vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark in the data set is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a clear, if narrow, verdict: the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX wins with a score of 4068 against the NVIDIA Quadro 2000's 3898. That is a 4.2% advantage for the 920MX, which is a modest but measurable lead in raw compute throughput. For context, the Quadro 2000’s nearest rivals in the overall database are all within a very tight band: the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 3883 (just 0.4% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 (0.5% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930 (0.8% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953 (1.4% ahead). The 920MX, meanwhile, sits in a slightly different neighborhood: its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 at 3594 (1.8% behind the 920MX), the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation at 3596 (1.9% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M at 3616 (2.4% behind), while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M trails at 3434 (2.7% behind the 920MX).

The delta of 4.2% in favor of the 920MX is not a landslide, but it is consistent with the broader percentile rankings. The Quadro 2000 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the 920MX sits at the 21st percentile. That may seem counterintuitive given the 920MX wins the direct comparison, but the average benchmark score tells the story: the Quadro 2000 averages 3898 across its single benchmark, while the 920MX averages 3528 across two benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan). The Vulkan score of 2987 drags the 920MX’s average down significantly, meaning its OpenCL win is not representative of all workloads. In the OpenCL test specifically, the 920MX is the clear winner, and the Quadro 2000 has no countervailing benchmark victory to point to — it wins zero of the head-to-head tests. The data shows a single-test sweep for the 920MX, but the magnitude is small enough that architectural context matters more than the raw delta.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX wins with a score of 4068, beating the NVIDIA Quadro 2000’s 3898 by a margin of 4.2%.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data contains only one test — Geekbench OpenCL — and the Quadro 2000 loses that test. The win count is 0 for the Quadro 2000 and 1 for the 920MX.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall percentile rankings?

A: The Quadro 2000 ranks at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the 920MX ranks at the 21st percentile. Despite losing the head-to-head test, the Quadro 2000 has a higher percentile placement.

Q: Why does the 920MX have a lower average benchmark score if it wins the OpenCL test?

A: The 920MX has two benchmark results: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4068 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 2987, producing an average of 3528. The Quadro 2000 has only one benchmark result (3898), so its average equals that score. The Vulkan result pulls the 920MX’s average below the Quadro 2000’s.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Quadro 2000 in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, with an average score of 3883, is just 0.4% behind the Quadro 2000. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919) and Quadro 2000D (3930) are slightly ahead.

Q: What is the closest rival to the 920MX in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, with an average score of 3434, is 2.7% behind the 920MX. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 (3594) is 1.8% behind, and the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596) is 1.9% behind.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and manufacturing generations. The Quadro 2000 is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF106 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The 920MX uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, also from TSMC, but on a more advanced 28 nm node. The process shrink is significant: the Quadro 2000 packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 4.9 million per mm². The 920MX packs 1,020 million transistors into just 77 mm², yielding a density of 13.2 million per mm² — nearly three times denser. That density advantage comes despite the 920MX having fewer total transistors, and it reflects the newer manufacturing process.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro 2000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The 920MX uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. That is a massive bandwidth disparity — the Quadro 2000 has nearly three times the memory bandwidth of the 920MX — but the 920MX compensates with a larger memory pool. The 920MX also has a higher pixel rate (7.944 GPixel/s vs 5.000 GPixel/s) and a higher texture rate (23.83 GTexel/s vs 20.00 GTexel/s), despite having fewer texture mapping units (24 vs 32) and fewer ROPs (8 vs 16). The shading unit count favors the 920MX at 256 vs 192, and the FP32 compute throughput is also higher on the 920MX at 508.4 GFLOPS vs 480.0 GFLOPS.

Architecturally, the Fermi-based Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The Maxwell-based 920MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro 2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the 920MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Power consumption is radically different — the Quadro 2000 has a 62 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the 920MX draws only 16 W with no suggested PSU listed. The Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the 920MX is an MXM module. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro 2000 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the 920MX’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The Quadro 2000 has a 40 nm process node; the 920MX uses 28 nm. The Quadro 2000’s die is 238 mm²; the 920MX’s is 77 mm². Transistor count is 1,170 million vs 1,020 million, and density is 4.9M / mm² vs 13.2M / mm². Clock speeds differ substantially: the Quadro 2000 lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the 920MX has a base clock of 965 MHz and a boost clock of 993 MHz, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Memory capacity is 1024 MB vs 2 GB, type is GDDR5 vs DDR3, bus width is 128 bit vs 64 bit, and bandwidth is 41.60 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s.

Compute resources differ in every category: shading units 192 vs 256, TMUs 32 vs 24, ROPs 16 vs 8. Pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s vs 7.944 GPixel/s, texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s vs 23.83 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 480.0 GFLOPS vs 508.4 GFLOPS. TDP is 62 W vs 16 W. Slot width is single-slot vs MXM module. The Quadro 2000 has a suggested PSU of 250 W; the 920MX has none. Bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort vs "Portable Device Dependent." In APIs, the Quadro 2000 lacks Vulkan support, while the 920MX lists Vulkan 1.4. Dimensions: the Quadro 2000 is 178 mm long and 111 mm high; the 920MX has no listed dimensions. Release dates differ: December 2010 for the Quadro 2000 vs March 2016 for the 920MX. The Quadro 2000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the 920MX has none listed.

The Verdict

The data points to the GeForce 920MX as the faster GPU in the one benchmark that directly compares them, with a 4.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. That is the headline result, and it is consistent with the 920MX’s higher shading unit count, higher FP32 throughput, and more advanced Maxwell architecture. The 920MX also offers Vulkan support, which the Quadro 2000 lacks, and it does so at a fraction of the power draw: 16 W vs 62 W. For any workload that relies on the OpenCL path and can fit within the 920MX’s 2 GB memory pool, the 920MX is the better performer.

However, the Quadro 2000 is not without merit in this comparison. Its memory bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s is nearly three times that of the 920MX, and its 128-bit bus with GDDR5 is a more capable memory subsystem for bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The Quadro 2000 also ranks higher in overall percentile (23rd vs 21st), which reflects its stronger average benchmark score relative to the wider database — though that is partly an artifact of the 920MX’s Vulkan score dragging its average down. The Quadro 2000’s single-slot form factor and fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) make it a conventional desktop card, while the 920MX is an MXM module for portable devices.

The verdict depends on the use case. For raw compute in a modern API context, the 920MX wins the only direct test. For bandwidth-heavy workloads or desktop integration with dedicated display outputs, the Quadro 2000’s specifications are more favorable. There is no clear overall winner — the 920MX takes the benchmark, but the Quadro 2000 holds advantages in memory bandwidth and form factor.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce 920MX wins on:

• Geekbench OpenCL performance, with a 4.2% higher score (4068 vs 3898).
• Compute throughput metrics: FP32 of 508.4 GFLOPS vs 480.0 GFLOPS, and 256 shading units vs 192.
• Pixel and texture rates: 7.944 GPixel/s vs 5.000 GPixel/s, and 23.83 GTexel/s vs 20.00 GTexel/s.
• API support: adds Vulkan 1.4, which the Quadro 2000 does not list.
• Power efficiency: 16 W TDP vs 62 W TDP, a 46 W difference in favor of the 920MX.
• Memory capacity: 2 GB vs 1 GB, allowing larger datasets in local memory.

NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins on:

• Memory bandwidth: 41.60 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s, a nearly 3x advantage.
• Memory bus width: 128 bit vs 64 bit, which underpins the bandwidth lead.
• Memory type: GDDR5 vs DDR3, a faster memory technology.
• Overall percentile ranking: 23rd vs 21st, indicating stronger standing in the full GPU database.
• Desktop form factor: single-slot with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, versus the 920MX’s portable-device-dependent outputs.
• Higher transistor count: 1,170 million vs 1,020 million, though on a larger die.