GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but narrow picture: the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M in the single available head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test. The 920MX scores 4,068 against the Quadro 2000M's 3,434, a delta of 18.5%. This is not a marginal victory; it is a decisive margin in a compute-oriented workload.

However, the story is more nuanced than a simple win-loss record. The Quadro 2000M, despite being older and based on a different architecture, is not far behind in the broader benchmark landscape. Its average benchmark score is 3,434, placing it in the 21st percentile of all GPUs, exactly the same percentile as the 920MX. The 920MX's average score is 3,528, also in the 21st percentile. This means both parts sit in the same performance tier relative to the entire GPU market, even though the newer chip wins their direct comparison.

For a buyer strictly choosing between these two end-of-life mobile parts, the GeForce 920MX is the data-backed pick. It wins the direct benchmark, has a higher average score, and does so while consuming far less power (16 W vs 55 W). The Quadro 2000M, however, retains a specific advantage: its memory bus width is double that of the 920MX (128-bit vs 64-bit), yielding a higher memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s compared to 14.40 GB/s. This could matter in bandwidth-sensitive applications, even if raw compute favors the newer part.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: choose the GeForce 920MX for general compute performance and efficiency. Choose the Quadro 2000M only if the wider memory bus and higher bandwidth are critical to your specific workload, as those are the only metrics where it leads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX has an average benchmark score of 3,528, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3,434. This gives the 920MX a 2.7% advantage over its rival in the average score metric.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: In the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce 920MX scores 4,068, which is 18.5% higher than the Quadro 2000M's score of 3,434. The 920MX wins this specific benchmark by a substantial margin.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The GeForce 920MX has a TDP of 16 W, while the Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W. This means the 920MX is significantly more power-efficient, requiring less than a third of the power budget of the Quadro 2000M.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions?

A: Yes, both the GeForce 920MX and the Quadro 2000M support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the 920MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s, which is exactly double the 14.40 GB/s of the GeForce 920MX. This is due to the Quadro's 128-bit memory bus width versus the 64-bit bus on the 920MX.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in terms of shader units and texture units?

A: The GeForce 920MX has more shading units (256 vs 192) but fewer texture units (24 vs 32) and fewer ROPs (8 vs 16) compared to the Quadro 2000M. The 920MX also has higher pixel rate (7.944 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s) and texture rate (23.83 GTexel/s vs 17.60 GTexel/s).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations, which explains many of their performance characteristics. The GeForce 920MX is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 2000M uses the older Fermi architecture, with the GF106 chip on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC.

The process node difference is significant: 28 nm vs 40 nm. This directly impacts transistor density. The GM108S packs 1,020 million transistors into a die size of just 77 mm², yielding a density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. In contrast, the GF106 has 1,170 million transistors spread across a much larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The newer process allows the 920MX to achieve nearly three times the transistor density of the Quadro 2000M.

The architectural differences extend to the compute units. The Maxwell-based 920MX has 256 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The Fermi-based Quadro 2000M has fewer shading units at 192, but more TMUs at 32 and more ROPs at 16. This configuration suggests the Quadro 2000M was designed with different workload characteristics in mind, potentially favoring tasks that require more pixel throughput or texture filtering.

Neither GPU has any ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies. The 920MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000M does not list any Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, which means software compatibility for common graphics APIs is broadly similar, but the 920MX has an edge in modern low-level API support.

Specification Differences

Focusing strictly on the fields where the two GPUs differ, the list is substantial. The process node differs: 28 nm for the 920MX versus 40 nm for the Quadro 2000M. Transistor count is slightly higher on the Quadro (1,170 million vs 1,020 million), but the die size is dramatically different: 77 mm² for the 920MX versus 238 mm² for the Quadro 2000M. This leads to the transistor density difference already noted.

Clock speeds are another area of divergence. The 920MX has a base clock of 965 MHz and a boost clock of 993 MHz. The Quadro 2000M has no base or boost clock listed in the data. Both have the same memory clock of 900 MHz, translating to 1800 Mbps effective.

Memory configuration differs significantly. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the bus width is 64-bit on the 920MX and 128-bit on the Quadro 2000M. This doubles the bandwidth on the Quadro: 28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

Compute unit counts differ across the board. The 920MX has 256 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The pixel rate is higher on the 920MX at 7.944 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is also higher at 23.83 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance follows the same pattern: 508.4 GFLOPS for the 920MX versus 422.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The 920MX has a TDP of 16 W, while the Quadro 2000M consumes 55 W. Both use MXM Module slot width and have no power connectors. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 on the 920MX versus MXM-A (3.0) on the Quadro 2000M.

Release dates are far apart: March 2016 for the 920MX versus January 2011 for the Quadro 2000M. The 920MX's predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile. The Quadro 2000M's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The API support differs only in Vulkan: the 920MX supports version 1.4, while the Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a clear win for the GeForce 920MX. The 920MX scores 4,068, while the Quadro 2000M scores 3,434. The delta is 18.5% in favor of the 920MX. This is not a small margin; it represents a substantial performance gap in a compute-heavy workload.

To put this in context, consider the nearest rivals for each GPU. The 920MX's closest competitor is the GeForce GT 545, which scores 3,594, a 1.8% difference. The Quadro 2000M's closest rival is the GeForce GT 740, which scores 3,431, a 0.1% difference. The performance gap between the 920MX and the Quadro 2000M is much larger than the gaps between each GPU and its own nearest rivals. This suggests that the 18.5% delta is not noise; it is a real architectural advantage for the Maxwell part.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The 920MX averages 3,528, while the Quadro 2000M averages 3,434. The delta here is 2.7%, which is much smaller than the OpenCL delta. This indicates that the 920MX's advantage may be workload-specific, with OpenCL compute being a particularly strong area for the newer architecture.

The Quadro 2000M's position in the benchmark landscape is notable. Its average score of 3,434 places it just behind the 920MX (3,528) and ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3,389) and the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3,332). The 920MX, in turn, sits just behind the GeForce GT 735M (3,616) and the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3,596). Both GPUs are in the same percentile tier (21st), but the 920MX sits at the higher end of that tier.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 920MX wins in raw compute performance. Its FP32 output of 508.4 GFLOPS exceeds the Quadro 2000M's 422.4 GFLOPS by a clear margin. It also has higher pixel rate (7.944 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s) and texture rate (23.83 GTexel/s vs 17.60 GTexel/s). In the OpenCL benchmark, it is 18.5% faster. For any workload that stresses shader compute, pixel fill, or texture filtering, the 920MX is the better choice.

The 920MX also wins decisively on power efficiency. With a TDP of 16 W versus 55 W, it delivers higher performance while consuming less than a third of the power. This makes it the superior choice for thermally constrained mobile platforms where battery life and cooling are priorities. The data also shows the 920MX has a higher average benchmark score (3,528 vs 3,434) and a smaller, more efficient die (77 mm² vs 238 mm²).

The Quadro 2000M wins in memory bandwidth. Its 128-bit memory bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth are exactly double the 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s of the 920MX. For applications that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, the Quadro 2000M could theoretically perform better, even though the raw compute benchmarks favor the 920MX. It also has more TMUs (32 vs 24) and more ROPs (16 vs 8), which could benefit certain fill-rate-limited scenarios.

The Quadro 2000M's status as a professional mobile workstation part suggests it was designed for certification and driver optimization in specific CAD or DCC applications, though the data does not include any professional application benchmarks. Its launch date in January 2011 makes it significantly older, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The 920MX, by contrast, is from March 2016 and has the GeForce 10 Mobile as its successor.

In summary, the data supports the GeForce 920MX for most use cases, particularly compute and efficiency. The Quadro 2000M's only clear advantage is memory bandwidth, which could be relevant in specific bandwidth-sensitive workloads. For all other measured metrics, the 920MX leads or matches.