NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D represent two very different design philosophies from NVIDIA, separated by years of architectural evolution. The 930M is a mobile-first Maxwell part aimed at consumer laptops, while the 2000D is a professional Fermi-era workstation card designed for desktop reliability. The data in the database shows a clear, if narrow, victory for the newer mobile chip in raw compute, but the Quadro brings its own strengths in memory bandwidth and interface flexibility. This analysis breaks down where each card wins, what the architecture differences mean, and who should actually consider using either one today.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 930M takes the overall benchmark crown, winning the only available head-to-head test. In the Geekbench OpenCL suite, the 930M scores 5046 against the Quadro 2000D’s 3930, a decisive 28.4% advantage. This is the sole recorded win for the 930M, but it is a substantial one, suggesting that for general compute workloads, shader-heavy tasks, and anything that leverages the newer Maxwell instruction set, the 930M is the stronger performer.

The Quadro 2000D, despite losing the compute test, wins on specific hardware specs that matter for certain professional use cases. Its memory subsystem is vastly superior: the 2000D uses GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the 930M’s DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, which manages just 12.80 GB/s. That is a 3.25x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro, which can be critical for texture-heavy workloads, large framebuffers, or certain scientific and CAD applications that rely on memory throughput rather than raw shader count. The Quadro also has double the ROPs (16 vs 8) and a higher pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s vs 4.392 GPixel/s), which suggests it may handle fill-rate-limited tasks, like high-resolution 2D rendering or multi-display output, more efficiently.

Where the 930M wins is in compute density and efficiency. It has 384 shading units versus the Quadro’s 192, a doubling of the core count, and its Maxwell architecture is far more efficient per clock. The 930M also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support recorded at all, making the 930M the only choice for modern cross-platform graphics APIs.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on radically different process nodes and architectures. The GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip, built on a 28 nm TSMC process, while the Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip, built on a much older 40 nm TSMC process. This node difference is massive: the 28 nm node allows for 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter, versus just 4.9 million for the 40 nm node. The 930M packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, while the Quadro fits 1,170 million transistors into a much larger 238 mm² die. The newer process is why the 930M achieves higher performance with a lower 33 W TDP, compared to the Quadro’s 62 W TDP.

Architecturally, the 930M is Maxwell, a generation known for its strong compute-per-clock and efficiency. The Quadro is Fermi, an older architecture that was competitive in its day but is now clearly dated. The 930M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the Quadro has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro’s higher TMU and ROP counts are interesting, as they suggest a design tuned for texture and pixel throughput, which aligns with its professional workstation heritage.

Memory is another major split. The 930M uses 2 GB of DDR3 with a 64-bit bus, which is slow by modern standards but adequate for a laptop part. The Quadro uses 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, which, while smaller in capacity, is dramatically faster in bandwidth. The bus interface also differs: the 930M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. This means the Quadro has a wider, albeit older, connection to the host system, which can matter for data transfer in workstation scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark recorded is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a clear win for the 930M. The 930M scores 5046, while the Quadro 2000D scores 3930. The delta percentage is 28.4%, meaning the 930M is nearly a third faster in this compute workload. This is a significant margin, especially considering the Quadro’s higher memory bandwidth. The result suggests that Maxwell’s shader architecture and higher core count dominate the older Fermi design in general-purpose compute, regardless of memory speed.

Looking at the rivals in the database provides context. The 930M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GT 645M (avg score 4411, delta -0.5%), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (avg score 4360, delta 0.7%), the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (avg score 4335, delta 1.2%), and the AMD FirePro W2100 (avg score 4295, delta 2.2%). The 930M sits just above all of these, which is notable because the RTX 4070 GDDR6 is a much newer and more powerful card in most respects, but in this specific OpenCL test, the 930M edges it out. This indicates that the 930M is a surprisingly competent compute part for its age and class.

The Quadro 2000D’s rivals paint a different picture. Its nearest rivals are the Quadro K2000D (avg score 3919, delta 0.3%), the GeForce GT 745M (avg score 3953, delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (avg score 3956, delta -0.7%), and the GeForce 830M (avg score 3957, delta -0.7%). The Quadro is the slowest of these by a small margin, placing it at the bottom of its immediate competitive set. This suggests that the Quadro 2000D is not just old, it is also outperformed by other low-end cards from the same era, including a mobile GeForce 830M.

The Verdict

From the data, the GeForce 930M is the better buy for almost any compute-oriented task. Its 28.4% lead in OpenCL, support for Vulkan, and higher shading unit count make it the more capable and future-proof card. It also does this with a much lower TDP (33 W vs 62 W), which is a practical advantage for any system that values power efficiency. The 930M is the clear winner if you are running general-purpose compute, modern APIs, or any workload that relies on shader throughput.

The Quadro 2000D is not without its niches, however. Its memory bandwidth (41.60 GB/s) is over three times that of the 930M, and its 128-bit bus and 16 ROPs make it potentially better for fill-rate-limited scenarios, such as multi-display desktop output or older CAD applications that are not shader-heavy. Its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while older, is a full x16 link, which may be preferable for data-intensive transfers in workstation contexts. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s vs 4.392 GPixel/s), making it a plausible choice for 2D rendering or framebuffer operations.

That said, the Quadro 2000D is end-of-life, uses a 40 nm process that is inefficient by modern standards, and lacks Vulkan support entirely. The 930M, while also end-of-life, is a newer design that is simply more capable in the metrics that matter for most users. For anyone choosing between these two today, the data points overwhelmingly to the GeForce 930M. The Quadro is only relevant if your specific workload is bandwidth-bound and you absolutely need a full PCIe x16 slot and a single-slot desktop form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M is significantly faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 5046 versus the Quadro 2000D’s 3930, a 28.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000D have any advantages over the 930M?

A: Yes, the Quadro has a much higher memory bandwidth (41.60 GB/s vs 12.80 GB/s), a wider 128-bit bus, double the ROPs (16 vs 8), and a higher pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s vs 4.392 GPixel/s).

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GeForce 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support recorded. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The GeForce 930M has a TDP of 33 W, while the Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W. The 930M is much more power-efficient.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GeForce 930M has 384 shading units, double the Quadro 2000D’s 192 units. This contributes to its higher compute performance.

Q: How does the memory capacity compare?

A: The GeForce 930M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the Quadro 2000D has 1 GB of GDDR5 memory. The Quadro has faster memory, but half the capacity.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 930M | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 12.80 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Memory Clock (Effective) | 1600 Mbps | 2.6 Gbps |

| Shading Units | 384 | 192 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.392 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.18 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 421.6 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 62 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | None |

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2011-10-04 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 599 USD |

| Dimensions (Length) | Not specified | 178 mm (7 inches) |

| Dimensions (Height) | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |