NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M decisively ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, with the only shared test showing a 25.5% performance advantage for the GeForce part. While both cards occupy similar low percentile positions globally, the GT 755M’s newer Kepler architecture and higher memory bandwidth make it the stronger compute option, whereas the Quadro 2000D offers a workstation-oriented feature set and a longer physical footprint for professional display configurations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. This yields a delta of 25.5% in favor of the GT 755M, a substantial margin that reflects fundamental architectural differences rather than minor clock variations.

This 25.5% lead is consistent with the GT 755M’s raw compute specifications. The GT 755M delivers 783.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000D, a 63% advantage in theoretical throughput. The GT 755M also doubles the shading unit count, with 384 units versus 192 on the Quadro. Memory bandwidth further separates the two: the GT 755M reaches 86.40 GB/s, more than double the Quadro’s 41.60 GB/s, even though both use a 128-bit bus. The GT 755M’s memory runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) versus 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) on the Quadro.

The GT 755M also holds advantages in pixel and texture rates. It outputs 8.160 GPixel/s and 32.64 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 2000D manages 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s. These figures translate directly to the 25.5% OpenCL score gap, confirming that the benchmark result is not an outlier but a consistent reflection of the hardware’s capabilities.

In terms of global standing, the GT 755M sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4033. The Quadro 2000D sits at the 23rd percentile, with an average score of 3930. The GT 755M’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013, 0.5% slower), the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075, 1% faster), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093, 1.5% faster). The Quadro 2000D’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, 0.3% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.6% faster), and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0.7% faster). Notably, the Quadro 2000D trails the GT 755M by a far wider margin than it trails its own direct competitors, underscoring the generational gap between the two architectures.

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 103 points higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D’s 3930.

Q: How much faster is the GT 755M in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GT 755M scores 4934 compared to the Quadro 2000D’s 3930, a 25.5% advantage for the GeForce card.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The GT 755M provides 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro 2000D offers 41.60 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the GT 755M’s memory clock is more than double that of the Quadro.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GT 755M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The GT 755M has a transistor density of 10.8M per mm², built on a 28 nm process. The Quadro 2000D has 4.9M per mm² on a 40 nm process.

Q: What is the physical size difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 2000D is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm (7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The GT 755M uses an MXM Module form factor with dimensions listed as “Portable Device Dependent.”

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for raw compute performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 25.5%, has a higher average score (4033 vs 3930), and sits at a higher global percentile (24th vs 23rd). Every measurable compute metric favors the GT 755M: FP32 throughput (783.4 GFLOPS vs 480.0 GFLOPS), pixel rate (8.160 GPixel/s vs 5.000 GPixel/s), texture rate (32.64 GTexel/s vs 20.00 GTexel/s), and memory bandwidth (86.40 GB/s vs 41.60 GB/s).

The Quadro 2000D does not win a single benchmark category in this comparison. Its strengths lie elsewhere: it is a professional workstation card with a 2x DVI display output, a single-slot design, and a 250 W suggested PSU. It also has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which was its market positioning at release. However, from a pure performance standpoint, the Quadro 2000D is the weaker card, and its 40 nm Fermi architecture is two generations behind the GT 755M’s 28 nm Kepler design.

For any user prioritizing OpenCL compute or general GPU throughput, the GT 755M is the superior choice based on the data. For a user requiring a fixed desktop workstation card with DVI outputs and a single-slot form factor, the Quadro 2000D has physical and interface advantages that the GT 755M cannot match due to its MXM Module design.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The GT 755M uses the GK107 chip on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip on a 40 nm process. The GT 755M packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, yielding a density of 10.8M per mm². The Quadro 2000D has 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die, giving a density of just 4.9M per mm².

Memory configurations differ significantly. The GT 755M has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB (1 GB). Both use a 128-bit bus, but the GT 755M’s memory clock of 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) far exceeds the Quadro’s 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). This results in 86.40 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources also diverge. The GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GT 755M’s pixel rate is 8.160 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 32.64 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 783.4 GFLOPS for the GT 755M and 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The GT 755M has a 50 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width, while the Quadro 2000D has a 62 W TDP and is a single-slot card. The Quadro 2000D also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, a detail absent for the GT 755M. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GT 755M versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro. Display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent” for the GT 755M, while the Quadro 2000D has 2x DVI.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The GT 755M is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, released as part of the GeForce 700M generation, and fabricated on a 28 nm TSMC process. The Quadro 2000D is a Fermi-generation part from the Quadro Fermi (x000) family, using a 40 nm TSMC process. The process node difference explains the transistor density: 10.8M per mm² for Kepler versus 4.9M per mm² for Fermi, despite a similar total transistor count (1,270 million vs 1,170 million). The GT 755M achieves this in a much smaller die (118 mm² vs 238 mm²).

The GT 755M’s Kepler architecture doubles the shading unit count relative to the Quadro (384 vs 192), which is the primary driver of its FP32 advantage. The GT 755M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed, limiting its API compatibility to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Both cards lack ray tracing and tensor cores, as expected for their eras.

The memory architecture differs in clock speed but not bus width. Both use a 128-bit GDDR5 interface, but the GT 755M’s effective memory speed of 5.4 Gbps is more than double the Quadro’s 2.6 Gbps, reflecting the newer memory controller design. The GT 755M also has a higher base clock of 980 MHz with a boost to 1020 MHz, whereas the Quadro 2000D has no base or boost clock listed in the data pack.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins in every compute-heavy scenario. Its 25.5% OpenCL lead, 63% FP32 advantage, and double memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute, OpenCL workloads, and any application that scales with shading units or memory throughput. It also wins on efficiency per watt, delivering 783.4 GFLOPS at 50 W versus 480.0 GFLOPS at 62 W for the Quadro, though the data pack does not provide a formal efficiency metric.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D wins on physical integration and professional display features. Its single-slot design and 178 mm length (7 inches) allow it to fit into standard desktop towers, while its 2x DVI outputs provide direct connectivity to legacy professional monitors. The Quadro’s 250 W suggested PSU is lower than what a typical high-end card requires, making it suitable for modest power supplies. Its 2011 release date and Quadro branding indicate a workstation pedigree, though the benchmark data shows no performance advantage from this positioning.

For users with a laptop or portable device requiring an MXM module, the GT 755M is the only viable option, as the Quadro 2000D is a desktop card. For users building a compact desktop workstation with DVI-only monitors and limited power budget, the Quadro 2000D’s form factor and connector set are superior, even if its raw performance is 25.5% lower in the shared benchmark. The GT 755M also wins on VRAM capacity with 2 GB versus 1 GB, which matters for texture-heavy workloads, though the Quadro’s professional driver certification may be relevant for specific ISV applications not captured in these benchmarks.