NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 are both end-of-life mobile and workstation graphics solutions, respectively, but they represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA design. The data clearly shows that the GT 755M is the faster GPU in raw compute benchmarks, holding a significant edge in the only shared test, while the Quadro 2000 offers a different set of workstation-oriented features and a much older manufacturing process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data provides a single direct comparison point between these two GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898. This translates to a 26.6% performance advantage for the GT 755M. This is not a marginal victory; it is a substantial gap that places the two cards in different performance tiers for compute workloads.

To contextualize this win, the GT 755M’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, which scores 4093, meaning the GT 755M is 1.5% ahead of that card. It also sits 1% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630 (score 4075). The Quadro 2000, by contrast, is nearly matched by the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, which scores 3919, a difference of only 0.5%. The GT 755M’s lead over the Quadro 2000 is therefore far larger than the margins separating either of them from their immediate competitors in the database rankings.

The win count is equally lopsided. The head-to-head data awards the GT 755M one win and the Quadro 2000 zero wins. This is a simple, unambiguous outcome. The Quadro 2000 simply does not have a single benchmark test where it outperforms the GT 755M. For any user prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the data indicates that the GT 755M is the superior choice by a wide margin.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains their performance disparity. The GeForce GT 755M is based on the GK107 chip, using the Kepler architecture, while the Quadro 2000 is built on the GF106 chip, using the older Fermi architecture. This generational leap is evident in the manufacturing process: the GT 755M is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the Quadro 2000 uses a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. The smaller process node allows the GT 755M to pack more transistors into a smaller area.

Specifically, the GT 755M contains 1,270 million transistors on a die size of 118 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 10.8M / mm². The Quadro 2000, despite having a larger die at 238 mm², houses only 1,170 million transistors, giving it a much lower density of 4.9M / mm². This difference in density is a direct result of the architectural and process node advancements. The GT 755M also features a higher number of shading units, with 384 compared to the Quadro 2000’s 192, doubling the core count for parallel compute tasks.

Both cards share the same number of texture mapping units (32) and render output units (16). However, the clock speeds differ significantly. The GT 755M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz, while the Quadro 2000’s base and boost clocks are not specified in the data. The memory configurations also differ, with the GT 755M using 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and the Quadro 2000 using half that at 1024 MB. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the GT 755M’s memory runs at an effective 5.4 Gbps, yielding a bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s, while the Quadro 2000’s memory runs at 2.6 Gbps effective, for a bandwidth of just 41.60 GB/s. That is a 100% advantage in memory bandwidth for the GT 755M, a critical factor for texture-heavy workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark results, the GeForce GT 755M is the clear winner in compute performance. Its 26.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL indicates a strong advantage in tasks that leverage parallel processing, such as general-purpose GPU computing, video encoding, and other OpenCL-accelerated applications. Its higher FP32 performance of 783.4 GFLOPS, compared to the Quadro 2000’s 480.0 GFLOPS, reinforces this conclusion. For any workload that is compute-bound, the GT 755M is the superior choice.

The Quadro 2000, however, is not without its own areas of focus. It is a workstation card, and while it loses the compute benchmark, it offers features that are not present on the GT 755M. The Quadro 2000 has a dedicated display output configuration of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the GT 755M’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are determined by the laptop manufacturer. The Quadro 2000 also has a defined physical footprint of 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, making it a single-slot card, whereas the GT 755M is an MXM Module. Furthermore, the Quadro 2000 supports a suggested PSU of 250 W, a detail not listed for the GT 755M.

For users who require a stable, validated workstation environment with specific display outputs and a known physical form factor, the Quadro 2000 may be the appropriate choice. Its strengths lie in its professional feature set and compatibility, not in raw speed. The data does not show any benchmark where the Quadro 2000 wins, so its "win" is in the domain of workstation-specific features, not performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has an average benchmark score of 4033, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000’s average score of 3898.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GT 755M scores 4934 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 2000 scores 3898. This results in a 26.6% performance advantage for the GT 755M.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The GT 755M has a memory bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s, which is more than double the Quadro 2000’s 41.60 GB/s.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The GT 755M uses the Kepler architecture, while the Quadro 2000 uses the older Fermi architecture.

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The GT 755M has 384 shading units, while the Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units. This means the GT 755M has twice the shader core count.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000 have a higher transistor density?

A: No. The GT 755M has a transistor density of 10.8M / mm², which is significantly higher than the Quadro 2000’s 4.9M / mm².

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specifications where the two GPUs differ. Both share the same manufacturer, memory type (GDDR5), bus width (128 bit), TMUs (32), ROPs (16), and API support for DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GT 755M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 980 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1020 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 5.4 Gbps effective | 2.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Bandwidth | 86.40 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.160 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.64 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 783.4 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 62 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

| Vulkan API | 1.2.175 | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2013-06-24 | 2010-12-23 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 599 USD |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the superior performer. With a 26.6% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark and a higher average score (4033 vs. 3898), it outperforms the Quadro 2000 in every measure of raw compute power available in the data. Its newer Kepler architecture, smaller 28 nm process, double the shading units, and significantly higher memory bandwidth all contribute to this result. Users who need maximum OpenCL compute performance should unequivocally choose the GT 755M.

The Quadro 2000, however, occupies a different niche. Its value proposition does not lie in benchmark victories—it has none. Instead, its appeal is in its professional workstation feature set. The Quadro 2000 offers a fixed single-slot form factor with a defined length of 178 mm and height of 111 mm, and it provides specific display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort) that are not dependent on a host device. It also carries the Quadro brand, which historically indicates certified drivers for professional applications. The data shows it consumes more power (62 W TDP vs. 50 W) and has a suggested PSU of 250 W, indicating it is designed for a desktop workstation environment. For a user building a legacy workstation that requires a specific physical card with dedicated display outputs, the Quadro 2000 remains a viable, albeit slow, option. For anyone else, the GT 755M is the clear choice based on performance metrics alone.