NVIDIA GeForce 920MX vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX has an average benchmark score of 3528, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has an average score of 3930. The Quadro 2000D holds the higher average across recorded tests.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GeForce 920MX scores 4068 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 2000D scores 3930. The 920MX leads by 3.4% in this specific workload.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 920MX has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has the lower power draw?

A: The GeForce 920MX is rated at 16 W TDP, whereas the Quadro 2000D is rated at 62 W TDP. The 920MX consumes substantially less power.

Q: What is the production status of both cards?

A: Both the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D and the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX are listed as end-of-life products in the database.

Q: Which card supports the Vulkan API?

A: The GeForce 920MX supports Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and target different market segments. The Quadro 2000D is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF106 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GeForce 920MX uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. This process difference is significant: the newer 28 nm node allows the Maxwell chip to pack 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, while the Fermi chip uses 1,170 million transistors across a much larger 238 mm² die. The resulting transistor density tells the story: 13.2M transistors per mm² for the 920MX versus 4.9M per mm² for the Quadro 2000D.

The shading resources also differ in structure. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce 920MX has 256 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. So the Maxwell part has more compute-oriented shading units but fewer texture and render output units. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Memory architecture represents another major split. The Quadro 2000D uses GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and memory clocked at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), producing 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 920MX uses DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus and memory clocked at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding just 14.40 GB/s. The Fermi card has nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which matters for many professional workloads. The 920MX compensates with 2 GB of capacity versus only 1 GB on the Quadro.

The interface and form factor also differ. The Quadro 2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with two DVI outputs. The GeForce 920MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and is an MXM module, with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it is designed for laptops. The Quadro requires a 250 W suggested power supply, while the 920MX has no suggested PSU listed. Neither card uses external power connectors.

The API support differs as well. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GeForce 920MX adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support recorded. This makes the Maxwell card more future-proof for applications that use Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a narrow but real split in workload preference. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce 920MX wins with a score of 4068 against the Quadro 2000D's 3930, a margin of 3.4%. This suggests the Maxwell architecture's higher shading unit count and newer process node give it an edge in general compute workloads that scale with shader throughput.

However, the Quadro 2000D's advantage lies in memory bandwidth and professional feature positioning. With 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s, the Fermi card can feed its 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs much faster. This makes it better suited for texture-heavy and fill-rate-bound tasks, despite its lower raw shading count. The 128-bit GDDR5 memory interface is a substantial asset.

The GeForce 920MX is clearly the mobile-oriented part. Its 16 W TDP, MXM form factor, and lack of fixed display outputs point to laptop integration. The Quadro 2000D, with its 62 W TDP, single-slot desktop design, and dual DVI outputs, is a workstation card for fixed desktop systems.

In the database's percentile rankings, the Quadro 2000D sits at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, while the GeForce 920MX sits at the 21st percentile. Despite the 920MX winning the head-to-head OpenCL test, its average benchmark score of 3528 is dragged down by the additional Vulkan test where it scores 2987. The Quadro 2000D's single recorded benchmark of 3930 gives it a higher average. This creates an interesting situation: the 920MX wins the direct comparison in OpenCL, but the Quadro has the higher overall average score.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GF106 (Quadro 2000D) versus GM108S (GeForce 920MX)
• Architecture: Fermi versus Maxwell
• Generation: Quadro Fermi (x000) versus GeForce 900M
• Process node: 40 nm versus 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,170 million versus 1,020 million
• Die size: 238 mm² versus 77 mm²
• Transistor density: 4.9M / mm² versus 13.2M / mm²
• Base clock: Not listed versus 965 MHz
• Boost clock: Not listed versus 993 MHz
• Memory clock: 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory size: 1024 MB versus 2 GB
• Memory type: GDDR5 versus DDR3
• Memory bus width: 128 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s
• Shading units: 192 versus 256
• TMUs: 32 versus 24
• ROPs: 16 versus 8
• Pixel rate: 5.000 GPixel/s versus 7.944 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 20.00 GTexel/s versus 23.83 GTexel/s
• FP32: 480.0 GFLOPS versus 508.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 62 W versus 16 W
• Slot width: Single-slot versus MXM Module
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus not listed
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display outputs: 2x DVI versus Portable Device Dependent
• Vulkan: Not listed versus 1.4
• Release date: 2011-10-04 versus 2016-03-24
• Predecessor: Quadro FX Tesla versus GeForce 800M
• Successor: Quadro Kepler versus GeForce 10 Mobile
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD versus not listed
• Dimensions: 178 mm length, 111 mm height versus not listed

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The GeForce 920MX scores 4068, while the Quadro 2000D scores 3930. The delta is -3.4% from the perspective of the Quadro, meaning the 920MX leads by that margin. This is the only direct comparison available, so it carries the full weight of the head-to-head analysis.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides context for each card's standing. The Quadro 2000D's closest competitors are the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, 0.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, 0.7% ahead). The Quadro 2000D essentially trades blows with these cards, sitting within a percentage point of all of them. Its score of 3930 places it just above the Quadro K2000D but slightly below the GeForce GT 745M and the other entries.

The GeForce 920MX's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average score of 3528 compares to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 (3594, 1.8% ahead), the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596, 1.9% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3616, 2.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (3434, 2.7% behind). The 920MX trails most of these rivals on average score, despite winning the OpenCL head-to-head against the Quadro 2000D. This discrepancy comes from the 920MX's Vulkan score of 2987, which lowers its average. The RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation, a far more modern part, sits just 1.9% above the 920MX in average score, which underscores how the 920MX's OpenCL result is strong relative to its overall average.

The pixel rate and texture rate figures also favor the 920MX in raw throughput. The 920MX delivers 7.944 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro, a lead of about 59%. Its texture rate is 23.83 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s, a lead of about 19%. FP32 compute also goes to the 920MX: 508.4 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS, a 5.9% advantage. These figures align with the OpenCL result, suggesting the Maxwell chip is consistently faster in shader-bound work.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced conclusion. If the workload is general compute or shader-bound rendering, the GeForce 920MX is the stronger part. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, delivers higher FP32 throughput, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, and more shading units. Its 3.4% OpenCL lead over the Quadro 2000D is modest, but it is consistent with the underlying specification advantages.

If the workload depends on memory bandwidth, the Quadro 2000D is the better choice. Its 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth is nearly three times that of the 920MX, and its 128-bit GDDR5 interface is far wider than the 64-bit DDR3 bus on the Maxwell part. For professional applications that stream large textures or datasets, this bandwidth advantage can outweigh the 920MX's compute edge.

The form factors decide the practical use case. The Quadro 2000D is a single-slot desktop card with dual DVI outputs, a 62 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested power supply. It is a workstation GPU for a fixed desktop system. The GeForce 920MX is an MXM module with a 16 W TDP and portable-device-dependent outputs, meaning it belongs in a laptop. These are not interchangeable products; they serve different physical platforms.

The release dates reinforce this split. The Quadro 2000D launched in October 2011, while the GeForce 920MX launched in March 2016. The 920MX is the newer architecture by roughly four and a half years, which explains its superior transistor density and API support, including Vulkan 1.4.

The verdict from the database is straightforward. For mobile users or anyone running OpenCL-heavy workloads, the GeForce 920MX is the better performer. For desktop workstation users who need memory bandwidth and DVI outputs, the Quadro 2000D remains the relevant option. The 920MX wins on compute and efficiency, while the Quadro 2000D wins on bandwidth and professional connectivity. Both cards are end-of-life, so the choice depends entirely on the target system and workload type.