GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they represent very different design philosophies and eras. The 920MX is a modern, ultra-low-power mobile chip built on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000D is an older, higher-power professional desktop card on a 40 nm process. The benchmark data reveals a close contest, but the architecture and specification differences tell a deeper story about which card is appropriate for which workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows the GeForce 920MX taking a narrow victory. The 920MX scores 4068 points, while the Quadro 2000D scores 3930 points. This gives the 920MX a 3.5% lead in this single compute test. While a win is a win, a 3.5% margin is small enough that real-world application performance could easily vary depending on driver optimization or specific workload characteristics.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the 920MX maintains a consistent edge in the synthetic compute arena. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 3528, which is lower than its OpenCL score because it also includes a Vulkan result of 2987. The Quadro 2000D, by contrast, has only the single OpenCL result on record, giving it an average score of 3930. When comparing these averages, the Quadro 2000D is actually 10.2% ahead of the 920MX in overall average score, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test. This suggests that the 920MX's Vulkan performance drags down its average, but in the specific OpenCL workload tested, it comes out on top.

The percentile rankings reinforce how close these two are in the grand scheme of things. The 920MX sits at the 21st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000D sits just two points higher at the 23rd percentile. Neither card is a performance powerhouse by modern standards, but the data shows the Quadro 2000D is positioned slightly higher in the overall distribution of GPU performance. The nearest rival data for each card also shows a tightly packed field. The 920MX's closest competitor is the GeForce GT 545 with an average score of 3594, which is 1.8% ahead of the 920MX's average. The Quadro 2000D's closest rival is the Quadro K2000D with a score of 3919, a 0.3% difference. These tight margins indicate that both cards are firmly in entry-level territory, where small architectural advantages can flip results.

The Verdict

From a pure compute performance standpoint, the data slightly favors the GeForce 920MX in the OpenCL test, but the Quadro 2000D has a higher average benchmark score and a better percentile ranking. This makes the verdict context-dependent. If you are looking strictly at the one benchmark we have, the 920MX is the winner. However, the Quadro 2000D's higher average and percentile suggest it is the more consistently capable card across a wider range of tasks.

For users who need a low-power, mobile-friendly solution, the 920MX is the clear choice. Its 16 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Quadro 2000D's 62 W, and it uses an MXM module form factor, which is designed for laptops and compact systems. The Quadro 2000D, on the other hand, is a single-slot desktop card that is 178 mm long and 111 mm high, requiring a standard PCIe 2.0 x16 slot. It also has a suggested PSU of 250 W, which is a significant system requirement.

The Quadro 2000D's professional pedigree is its main selling point. As a Quadro card, it is designed for certified professional applications, and its 2x DVI display outputs are a hallmark of workstation use. The 920MX has display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation. If you need a dedicated workstation card with DVI outputs and a higher average benchmark score, the Quadro 2000D is the one to pick. If you need the best OpenCL score in a low-power mobile package, the 920MX wins.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The GeForce 920MX uses the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM108S chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 2000D uses the older Fermi architecture, with the GF106 chip, also made by TSMC but on a larger 40 nm process. This process difference is significant: the 920MX packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, while the Quadro 2000D has 1,170 million transistors spread across a much larger 238 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story clearly: the 920MX has 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Quadro 2000D has only 4.9 million. This is a direct reflection of the newer manufacturing process.

The compute capabilities also diverge. The 920MX has 256 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, while the Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the 920MX has more shader cores for general compute, but the Quadro 2000D has more texture units and ROPs for fill-rate-bound work. The pixel rate confirms this: the 920MX achieves 7.944 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 2000D manages only 5.000 GPixel/s. However, the texture rate is closer: 23.83 GTexel/s for the 920MX versus 20.00 GTexel/s for the Quadro 2000D.

The FP32 performance is nearly identical, with the 920MX at 508.4 GFLOPS and the Quadro 2000D at 480.0 GFLOPS. This explains why the OpenCL benchmark is so close. Neither card supports ray tracing or tensor cores, and both are limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The key API difference is Vulkan support: the 920MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed. This is a major feature gap, as Vulkan is a modern cross-platform graphics API.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification difference is memory. The 920MX has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a massive difference in memory bandwidth, with the Quadro 2000D offering nearly three times the bandwidth of the 920MX. The memory clock also reflects this: the 920MX runs at 1800 Mbps effective, while the Quadro 2000D runs at 2.6 Gbps effective. For memory-heavy workloads, the Quadro 2000D has a clear advantage, despite having half the capacity.

Clock speeds are another differentiator. The 920MX has a base clock of 965 MHz and a boost clock of 993 MHz, while the Quadro 2000D has no base or boost clock listed. This makes direct clock comparison impossible, but the 920MX's boost clock is a feature the Quadro lacks entirely. The power profiles are starkly different: the 920MX has a TDP of 16 W and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, also requires no power connectors, but has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The bus interface differs as well. The 920MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which is a modern, half-width connection, while the Quadro 2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16, which is older but full-width. For a desktop card, the x16 interface is standard, but the x8 interface on the 920MX is a compromise for mobile designs. The release dates show a five-year gap: the Quadro 2000D launched on 2011-10-04, while the 920MX launched on 2016-03-24. The 920MX's predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile, while the Quadro 2000D's predecessor is Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is Quadro Kepler. The Quadro 2000D has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which is a notable data point for its professional positioning.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has a higher average benchmark score of 3930, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX's average of 3528.

Q: Does the GeForce 920MX support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GeForce 920MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed in the data.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 2000D has 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which is significantly higher than the GeForce 920MX's 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GeForce 920MX has a higher pixel rate of 7.944 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 2000D has a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The GeForce 920MX has a TDP of 16 W, while the Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The GeForce 920MX has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 920MX wins in scenarios that favor its modern architecture and low power draw. Its higher FP32 performance (508.4 GFLOPS vs 480.0 GFLOPS) and better pixel rate make it a stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks that are not memory-bandwidth limited. The Vulkan support is a major win for modern game compatibility and compute APIs. Its 16 W TDP makes it ideal for thin-and-light laptops or any application where heat and power are primary constraints. The 2 GB memory capacity is also double the Quadro 2000D, which helps in workloads that need more memory capacity over bandwidth.

The Quadro 2000D wins in scenarios that benefit from its massive memory bandwidth advantage. The 41.60 GB/s bandwidth is nearly triple the 920MX's 14.40 GB/s, making it the clear winner for tasks that stream large amounts of data, such as high-resolution textures or large datasets. Its 128-bit memory bus and 16 ROPs give it an edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios despite the lower pixel rate. The 2x DVI outputs make it a practical choice for multi-monitor professional setups. Its higher average benchmark score and 23rd percentile ranking (vs 21st for the 920MX) indicate it is the more consistently performant card in the broader GPU landscape. The Quadro 2000D also has a higher transistor count (1,170 million vs 1,020 million) and more TMUs (32 vs 24), which helps in certain texture-heavy workloads. Ultimately, the 920MX is the better mobile compute solution, while the Quadro 2000D is the better desktop workstation card for bandwidth-sensitive tasks.