NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M is decisively one-sided. Across the two shared benchmark tests recorded in the database, the Quadro P2000 wins both, with margins that range from substantial to overwhelming.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P2000 scores 20,125, while the GeForce 940M manages 6,018. That is a delta of 234.4%, meaning the Quadro P2000 delivers more than three times the raw compute throughput. The gap is even more pronounced in Geekbench Vulkan: the Quadro P2000 posts 23,566 against the 940M's 4,549, a 418% advantage. This indicates that the Quadro P2000 excels in modern API workloads where the older Maxwell architecture in the 940M simply cannot keep pace.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The Quadro P2000 sits at 6,049 across all recorded tests, while the GeForce 940M averages 5,284. The percentile ranks reinforce the divide: the Quadro P2000 lands in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the 940M sits at the 31st percentile. Neither card is a high flyer in the broader GPU landscape, but the Quadro P2000 holds a clear edge over its older mobile counterpart.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Quadro P2000's average score of 6,049 places it within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077) and the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6,078), and it is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019) and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6,001). The GeForce 940M, by contrast, sits at 5,284, which is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5,308), 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5,317), 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5,322), and 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5,236). These figures show that the 940M clusters with older mobile parts, while the Quadro P2000 sits alongside more recent entry-level offerings.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins in every category where both cards have recorded data. That includes OpenCL compute performance, Vulkan graphics workloads, and the overall average benchmark score. The 234.4% lead in OpenCL and 418% lead in Vulkan are not marginal advantages; they represent a generational leap in capability.

The GeForce 940M has no recorded benchmark wins against the Quadro P2000. Its only strong suit, if it can be called that, is its existence as a lower-power mobile solution, but even the power draw is identical at 75 W for both cards. The 940M's 14.40 GB/s memory bandwidth and 64-bit bus are severely limiting factors, as is its 2 GB DDR3 frame buffer. For any workload that stresses memory throughput, the Quadro P2000's 140.2 GB/s bandwidth and 5 GB GDDR5 allocation leave the 940M far behind.

For use-case analysis, the data points to the Quadro P2000 as the choice for compute-heavy tasks, modern API development, and any application that benefits from larger memory capacity. The GeForce 940M, with its lower compute throughput and older architecture, is better suited only to legacy workloads or situations where the MXM module form factor is a hard requirement. Even then, the performance gap is so large that the 940M would struggle to justify its selection on any performance-based criterion.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Quadro P2000 is built on the Pascal architecture, specifically the GP106 chip, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The GeForce 940M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, also from TSMC but on a larger 28 nm node. This process difference is significant: the Quadro P2000 packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million transistors per mm². The 940M contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6 million per mm². The Pascal part is both denser and more efficient in how it uses silicon.

The compute resources differ accordingly. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units. The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every category, the Quadro P2000 has double the hardware resources of the 940M, which directly explains the benchmark deltas.

Clock speeds also favor the Quadro P2000. Its base clock is 1,076 MHz with a boost of 1,480 MHz, while the 940M runs at 1,020 MHz base and 1,098 MHz boost. The memory clocks are even more divergent: the Quadro P2000 runs at 1,752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective throughput, while the 940M runs at 900 MHz with 1,800 Mbps effective. The memory bus widths compound this: 160-bit for the Quadro P2000 versus 64-bit for the 940M.

The Quadro P2000 also supports FP16 compute at 47.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the 940M has no recorded FP16 capability. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the Quadro P2000 achieves 59.20 GPixel/s and 94.72 GTexel/s, compared to the 940M's 17.57 GPixel/s and 35.14 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.031 TFLOPS for the Quadro P2000 versus 1,124.4 GFLOPS for the 940M.

The API support differs as well. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the Quadro P2000's DirectX 12 feature level is 12_1, while the 940M is limited to 11_0. This means the Quadro P2000 can handle more advanced DirectX 12 features, which is part of why its Vulkan score is so much higher.

Specification Differences

Memory is one of the largest spec gaps. The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 940M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. That is nearly ten times the bandwidth difference and 2.5 times the memory capacity.

The process node differs: 16 nm for the Quadro P2000 versus 28 nm for the 940M. Transistor counts are 4,400 million versus 1,870 million, and die sizes are 200 mm² versus 148 mm². Transistor density is 22.0M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Both cards have a 75 W TDP, but their physical formats differ. The Quadro P2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, measuring 196 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The GeForce 940M is an MXM module, uses no power connectors, has no suggested PSU listed, and has no recorded dimensions. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro P2000 versus MXM-B (3.0) for the 940M.

Display outputs are another point of divergence. The Quadro P2000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the 940M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the laptop implementation.

Release dates differ by nearly two years: the Quadro P2000 launched on February 5, 2017, while the 940M launched on March 12, 2015. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro P2000's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta. The 940M's predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has 140.2 GB/s bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus. The GeForce 940M has 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P2000 in Vulkan?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 23,566 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 4,549 for the GeForce 940M, a 418% advantage.

Q: Do both cards consume the same power?

A: Yes, both have a 75 W TDP. The Quadro P2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the 940M is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: What DirectX feature levels do they support?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1, while the GeForce 940M supports DirectX 12 with feature level 11_0.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, double the 512 found in the GeForce 940M. It also has 64 TMUs versus 32, and 40 ROPs versus 16.

Q: When were these GPUs released?

A: The Quadro P2000 was released on February 5, 2017. The GeForce 940M was released on March 12, 2015. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior GPU by every measured metric. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (6,049 versus 5,284), a higher percentile rank (35 versus 31), and a hardware specification sheet that doubles or nearly doubles the 940M's resources in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth.

For compute workloads, the Quadro P2000's 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 47.36 GFLOPS FP16 capability make it the only sensible choice. The 940M's 1,124.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput and lack of FP16 support place it firmly in a lower performance tier. For modern graphics APIs, the Quadro P2000's Vulkan score of 23,566 versus 4,549 and its DirectX 12_1 feature level versus 11_0 mean it will handle current and future titles and applications far better.

The GeForce 940M's only potential advantage is its MXM form factor, which may be required in certain laptop designs. But even there, the performance penalty is steep, and the identical 75 W TDP means there is no power savings to justify the older part. The Quadro P2000 also has a clear upgrade path in its product stack, with Quadro Volta as its successor, while the 940M's successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

For anyone choosing between these two, the recommendation is straightforward: pick the Quadro P2000 unless the MXM module form factor is an absolute requirement. The 940M is outclassed in every recorded benchmark, every architectural metric, and every specification category that matters for real-world performance.