GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000M are both end-of-life mobile GPUs built on the Fermi architecture, but they target different corners of the laptop market. The GT 635M is a consumer-oriented chip, while the Quadro 2000M is a professional workstation part. Benchmark data from Geekbench OpenCL shows the GT 635M scoring 3740, which is 8.9% higher than the Quadro 2000M's 3434. This single benchmark result drives the entire comparison, though the underlying hardware differences tell a more nuanced story about where each GPU fits.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the GeForce GT 635M wins the only head-to-head benchmark available. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 3740 against the Quadro 2000M's 3434, a delta of 8.9%. This places the GT 635M in the 22nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000M sits at the 21st percentile. The advantage is modest but consistent, the GT 635M finishes ahead in raw compute performance.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the GT 635M's position is tight. It trails the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792) by 1.4%, but beats the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718) by 0.6%, the GeForce GT 740M (3717) by 0.6%, and the GeForce 825M (3694) by 1.2%. The Quadro 2000M, by contrast, sits just behind the GeForce 920MX (3528) by 2.7%, while leading the GeForce GT 740 (3431) by 0.1%, the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389) by 1.3%, and the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) by 3.1%. These comparisons show both GPUs are clustered in the lower-midrange of mobile graphics performance.

The GT 635M wins the compute contest outright. Its 96 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs deliver 182.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, 7.600 GTexel/s of texture rate, and 1.900 GPixel/s of pixel rate. The Quadro 2000M counters with 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, producing 422.4 GFLOPS, 17.60 GTexel/s, and 4.400 GPixel/s. Despite having double the shading units and quadruple the ROPs, the Quadro 2000M still loses the OpenCL benchmark. This suggests the GT 635M benefits from better driver optimization or clock behavior in the compute workload tested.

For gaming and general consumer use, the GT 635M is the pragmatic choice. Its higher benchmark score means smoother performance in OpenCL-accelerated applications, which includes many modern games and media tools. The Quadro 2000M, while architecturally more capable on paper, does not translate that into a win here. Its professional pedigree is not reflected in the single benchmark available, so there is no data-driven case for it outperforming the GT 635M in any tested workload.

The Verdict

The GeForce GT 635M is the pick for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance. The data shows it leads the Quadro 2000M by 8.9% in Geekbench OpenCL, which is the only benchmark result available. With a score of 3740, it also sits closer to the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792) than the Quadro 2000M does to any of its rivals. If you are choosing between these two for a laptop, the GT 635M is the faster part in the tested metric.

The Quadro 2000M is not without its arguments, but none of them come from benchmark scores. It has double the shading units (192 vs 96), double the TMUs (32 vs 16), and quadruple the ROPs (16 vs 4). Its FP32 throughput of 422.4 GFLOPS is more than double the GT 635M's 182.4 GFLOPS. Yet in the actual OpenCL test, it loses. This disconnect between theoretical specs and real-world results is the defining characteristic of this matchup. The Quadro 2000M only makes sense if you specifically need a professional mobile workstation GPU with the Quadro driver ecosystem, but the data does not show any performance benefit to justify that choice.

Neither GPU is a winner in the broader market. The GT 635M's 22nd percentile and the Quadro 2000M's 21st percentile both place them in the bottom quarter of all GPUs. They are entry-level mobile parts from the Fermi era, now end-of-life. For a new purchase, there is no reason to choose either, but if forced between the two, the GT 635M is the faster option based on the benchmark data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a clear win for the GeForce GT 635M. The GT 635M scores 3740, while the Quadro 2000M scores 3434, giving the GT 635M an 8.9% advantage. This is a meaningful gap in a compute workload that exercises the GPU's parallel processing capabilities.

Breaking down the result, the GT 635M's victory is notable given the hardware disparity. The Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, which is exactly double the GT 635M's 96. It also has 32 TMUs versus 16, and 16 ROPs versus 4. The Quadro 2000M's texture rate of 17.60 GTexel/s is 2.3 times higher than the GT 635M's 7.600 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s is also 2.3 times higher. FP32 throughput favors the Quadro 2000M even more: 422.4 GFLOPS versus 182.4 GFLOPS, a factor of 2.3. Despite all this, the GT 635M still wins by nearly 9%.

This suggests the OpenCL workload is not purely bound by shading unit count or texture throughput. The GT 635M may benefit from a more efficient memory subsystem or better scheduling. Both GPUs have identical memory configurations: 2 GB DDR3, a 128-bit bus, 900 MHz memory clock, 1800 Mbps effective, and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. Memory is not the differentiator. The GT 635M's smaller die, 116 mm² with 585 million transistors, contrasts with the Quadro 2000M's 238 mm² and 1,170 million transistors. The GT 635M achieves its win with half the silicon area and half the transistor count, pointing to a more efficient design for this particular test.

Neither GPU has any wins in other benchmark categories, as the head-to-head data contains only this single test. The GT 635M takes the sole victory, with the Quadro 2000M recording zero wins. For the Quadro 2000M, the only consolation is its nearest rival comparison: it leads the Intel HD Graphics 530 by 3.1%, whereas the GT 635M trails the Intel UHD Graphics 710 by 1.4%. But these are indirect comparisons, and the direct head-to-head is decisive.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M is faster, scoring 3740 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the Quadro 2000M's 3434, an 8.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000M have more shading units than the GT 635M?

A: Yes, the Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, which is exactly double the GT 635M's 96 shading units. It also has 32 TMUs versus 16, and 16 ROPs versus 4.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: They are identical. Both GPUs use 2 GB of DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus, a memory clock of 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective speed, and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The GT 635M uses 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, while the Quadro 2000M uses 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. Both are built on a 40 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has a higher power draw?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the GT 635M has a TDP of 35 W. The GT 635M is also an IGP slot width, whereas the Quadro 2000M uses an MXM Module.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: The GT 635M's closest rival is the Intel UHD Graphics 710 at 3792, which beats it by 1.4%. The Quadro 2000M's closest rival is the GeForce 920MX at 3528, which beats it by 2.7%. The GT 635M beats the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M by 0.6%, and the Quadro 2000M beats the GeForce GT 740 by 0.1%.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use the Fermi architecture, but they are built on different chips. The GeForce GT 635M uses the GF108 chip, while the Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip. This is a fundamental difference that explains the hardware disparity. The GF108 is a smaller, lower-end Fermi implementation, while the GF106 is a more substantial mid-range design.

The transistor counts reflect this: the GF108 packs 585 million transistors, while the GF106 has 1,170 million, exactly double. Die size follows suit, with the GF108 at 116 mm² and the GF106 at 238 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical: 5.0M per mm² for the GF108 and 4.9M per mm² for the GF106, confirming both are on the same 40 nm TSMC process with similar design rules.

The shading unit count is the most striking architectural difference. The Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, exactly double the GT 635M's 96. This doubles the TMUs (32 vs 16) and quadruples the ROPs (16 vs 4). The Quadro 2000M's pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s and texture rate of 17.60 GTexel/s are both 2.3 times higher than the GT 635M's 1.900 GPixel/s and 7.600 GTexel/s. FP32 performance follows the same pattern: 422.4 GFLOPS versus 182.4 GFLOPS.

Both GPUs share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support. Neither has RT cores or tensor cores. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for both, meaning the laptop manufacturer determines the physical connectors. The power delivery differs, with the GT 635M having no power connectors and the Quadro 2000M also having none, but the TDPs are 35 W and 55 W respectively. The GT 635M is classified as an IGP slot width, while the Quadro 2000M is an MXM Module, indicating different physical mounting options.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several areas where the two GPUs differ. The most significant is the core configuration: the Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the GT 635M has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. This translates to the Quadro 2000M's higher pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s versus 1.900 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 17.60 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 422.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000M and 182.4 GFLOPS for the GT 635M.

Memory is identical across both: 2 GB DDR3, 128-bit bus, 900 MHz clock, 1800 Mbps effective, and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The chip and die differ, as noted: GF108 with 585 million transistors and 116 mm² for the GT 635M, versus GF106 with 1,170 million transistors and 238 mm² for the Quadro 2000M. Transistor density is nearly the same at 5.0M and 4.9M per mm².

Power and physical specifications differ meaningfully. The GT 635M has a 35 W TDP and an IGP slot width, while the Quadro 2000M has a 55 W TDP and an MXM Module slot width. Neither requires power connectors. The bus interface also differs: the GT 635M uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Quadro 2000M uses MXM-A (3.0). Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Release dates and generations separate them further. The Quadro 2000M launched on 2011-01-12 as part of the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation, while the GT 635M launched over a year later on 2012-03-21 in the GeForce 600M generation. The Quadro 2000M's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The GT 635M's predecessor is the GeForce 500M and its successor is the GeForce 700M. Both are end-of-life, and neither has a launch MSRP. The benchmark results remain the deciding factor, and the GT 635M wins by 8.9%.