NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4,939 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D manages 3,930 points. This represents a 20.4% advantage for the GeForce 940MX, a substantial margin that places it firmly ahead in raw compute performance.

Context from the database's nearest rival comparisons reinforces this gap. The Quadro 2000D's average benchmark score is 3,930, placing it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitors are clustered tightly around it: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3,919 (just 0.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3,953 (0.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3,956 (0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 3,957 (0.7% ahead). The Quadro 2000D is effectively in the middle of a very narrow performance band, where no rival separates itself by more than a single percentage point.

The GeForce 940MX, by contrast, sits in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4,844 across its two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). Its OpenCL score of 4,939 is its higher result, while its Vulkan score comes in at 4,749. The nearest rivals for the 940MX paint a different competitive picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M scores 4,855 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4,867 (0.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4,893 (1.0% ahead). Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB scores 4,791, which is 1.1% behind the 940MX in this particular database entry, though that delta is within the noise of these older mobile and entry-level parts.

The 20.4% delta between the two cards in this comparison is far larger than any delta seen within their respective rival clusters. This indicates that the GeForce 940MX is not merely a little faster; it occupies a meaningfully higher performance tier in OpenCL compute workloads. The Quadro 2000D's 23rd percentile ranking versus the 940MX's 28th percentile confirms the separation, though the percentile difference understates the raw score gap because the 940MX has a second benchmark (Vulkan) pulling its average slightly lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4,939 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D's 3,930, giving the 940MX a 20.4% lead.

Q: How does the Quadro 2000D compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Quadro 2000D's average score of 3,930 puts it within 0.7% of all four nearest rivals. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D trails by 0.3%, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M, AMD Radeon R5 M420, and NVIDIA GeForce 830M lead by 0.6% to 0.7%.

Q: What is the GeForce 940MX's average benchmark score?

A: Its average is 4,844, derived from two recorded tests: a 4,939 OpenCL score and a 4,749 Vulkan score.

Q: Does the GeForce 940MX have a Vulkan benchmark result?

A: Yes, it scores 4,749 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro 2000D has no recorded Vulkan benchmark in the database.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GeForce 940MX has a pixel rate of 6.888 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 2000D achieves 5.000 GPixel/s.

Q: What are the transistor density figures for each chip?

A: The Quadro 2000D's GF106 chip has a density of 4.9M transistors per mm², while the GeForce 940MX's GM107 chip has 12.6M transistors per mm².

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 940MX wins in every measured compute category. Its OpenCL score of 4,939 versus 3,930 is the only direct head-to-head result, and it also exceeds the Quadro 2000D in raw throughput metrics. The 940MX delivers 881.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, nearly double the Quadro 2000D's 480.0 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s outperforms the Quadro's 20.00 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 6.888 GPixel/s beats the Quadro's 5.000 GPixel/s. The 940MX also has a Vulkan API rating of 1.4, which the Quadro 2000D lacks entirely, making it the only choice for workloads that leverage Vulkan.

The Quadro 2000D does not win any recorded benchmark, but it retains advantages in specific hardware characteristics. Its memory bus is 128 bit wide, versus the 940MX's 64 bit, and its memory bandwidth is 41.60 GB/s, marginally higher than the 940MX's 40.10 GB/s. It also has 16 ROPs, double the 940MX's 8 ROPs. For applications that are sensitive to memory bus width or ROP count rather than raw shader throughput, the Quadro 2000D could still be preferable, but the benchmark data does not support any performance win.

The use-case split is clear: the GeForce 940MX dominates in general compute, OpenCL workloads, and any Vulkan-based application. The Quadro 2000D's wider memory bus and higher ROP count could theoretically benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks, but no recorded benchmark validates that. The database shows one winner, and it is the GeForce 940MX.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The GeForce 940MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro 2000D has only 1 GB. The 940MX's memory clock runs at 1,253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, whereas the Quadro's memory runs at 650 MHz with 2.6 Gbps effective. Despite this, the Quadro 2000D's 128 bit bus gives it 41.60 GB/s bandwidth, slightly above the 940MX's 64 bit bus and 40.10 GB/s.

Processor configuration diverges sharply. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The 940MX's FP32 output is 881.7 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro. Pixel rate favors the 940MX at 6.888 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, as does texture rate at 27.55 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s.

Power and physical characteristics differ substantially. The Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, while the GeForce 940MX uses only 23 W. The Quadro is a single-slot, 178 mm long and 111 mm tall card with dual DVI outputs. The 940MX is an MXM module with no fixed dimensions and its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The Quadro requires a 250 W suggested PSU; the 940MX has no suggested PSU listed. Both use no power connectors. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the 940MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Architecture Differences

The architectures are two generations apart. The Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip built on Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GeForce 940MX uses the GM107 chip built on Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the process difference: the GF106 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, yielding a density of 4.9M per mm². The GM107 has 1,870 million transistors on a smaller 148 mm² die, yielding 12.6M per mm².

The Quadro 2000D belongs to the Quadro Fermi generation and was released on October 4, 2011. Its predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla, and its successor is Quadro Kepler. The GeForce 940MX belongs to the GeForce 900M generation and was released on June 27, 2016. Its predecessor is the GeForce 800M, and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

API support shows a notable difference. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GeForce 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed. In terms of shading architecture, the 940MX's 512 shading units versus 192 on the Quadro reflects the Maxwell design's higher shader count per SM, even though both have 32 TMUs. The ROP count is inverted: the Quadro has 16, the 940MX has 8, which is a direct consequence of their different memory bus widths (128 bit versus 64 bit).

The Verdict

The data directs a clear verdict toward the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX for any user prioritizing compute performance. Its 20.4% OpenCL lead over the Quadro 2000D, combined with its 881.7 GFLOPS FP32 throughput and Vulkan support, makes it the superior choice for general-purpose GPU workloads, OpenCL acceleration, and any modern API usage.

The Quadro 2000D retains a narrow niche. Its 128 bit memory bus and 16 ROPs are hardware advantages that could matter in specific legacy rasterization scenarios, and its higher memory bandwidth (41.60 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s) is technically superior, though by only 3.7%. Its 62 W TDP is higher, but it is a desktop card with dual DVI outputs, making it a viable option for systems requiring those exact display connections.

For laptop users or anyone needing low power consumption, the GeForce 940MX's 23 W TDP is decisively better. For desktop users with legacy DVI-only monitors and a preference for wider memory bus architecture, the Quadro 2000D has its place. But in terms of measured benchmark performance, there is only one winner. The database records one head-to-head test, and the GeForce 940MX wins it by a wide margin.

The percentile rankings confirm the separation: 28th for the 940MX versus 23rd for the Quadro 2000D. The nearest rival data for each card shows that the 940MX competes against stronger parts (GTX 560M, GTS 450) while the Quadro 2000D sits among weaker ones (830M, GT 745M). The choice, based strictly on recorded data, is the GeForce 940MX for performance, with the Quadro 2000D reserved for specific hardware compatibility needs.