NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head comparison between these two mobile graphics processors, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M records a score of 4934, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M posts 3434. That is a 43.7% advantage for the GT 755M. This is not a narrow margin; it is a substantial performance gap that places the two chips in different tiers of compute capability.

The GT 755M also has a second benchmark result, Geekbench Metal, where it scores 3132. The Quadro 2000M has no Metal score recorded in the database, which limits direct comparison to the OpenCL test alone. Still, the OpenCL result alone establishes the hierarchy: the GT 755M is the faster part under general-purpose compute workloads.

Looking at the broader context, the GT 755M's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4033. The Quadro 2000M's average is 3434, which is identical to its single OpenCL result. The difference in averages is 599 points, or roughly 17.4%. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the GT 755M sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 2000M sits at the 21st percentile. These are both below-median parts, but the GT 755M is measurably closer to the middle of the pack.

The nearest rival data adds texture to these numbers. For the GT 755M, the closest competitors include the AMD FirePro M4150 (average score 4013, just 0.5% behind), the Intel HD Graphics 630 (average 4075, 1% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (average 3977, 1.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (average 4093, 1.5% ahead). This clustering suggests the GT 755M sits in a competitive band where small variations in driver optimization or workload composition could flip relative positions. The Quadro 2000M, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (average 3431, 0.1% behind), the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (average 3389, 1.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (average 3528, 2.7% ahead), and the Intel HD Graphics 530 (average 3332, 3.1% behind). The Quadro's rivals are all similarly modest performers, which underscores its position as a low-end mobile part.

The head-to-head delta of 43.7% is the single most informative figure in this comparison. It tells us that in raw compute throughput, the GT 755M is far ahead. But the story becomes more interesting when we examine why these two chips differ so much despite both being NVIDIA products from the same era of mobile computing.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, and that distinction explains much of the performance gap. The GT 755M uses the GK107 chip, built on the Kepler architecture. The Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip, which is based on the older Fermi architecture. This is not a minor revision; Kepler introduced fundamental changes to how the GPU schedules and executes work compared to Fermi.

The manufacturing process tells a similar story. The GT 755M is fabricated on a 28 nm node at TSMC, while the Quadro 2000M uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller process allows the GT 755M to pack more transistors into a smaller die. The GT 755M contains 1,270 million transistors on a die measuring 118 mm², giving a transistor density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 2000M has 1,170 million transistors on a much larger die of 238 mm², resulting in a density of just 4.9 million per square millimeter. The GT 755M achieves more than double the transistor density of the Quadro 2000M, which directly enables higher clock speeds and more compute units within the same thermal envelope.

The compute resources differ substantially. The GT 755M has 384 shading units, while the Quadro 2000M has 192. That is exactly double the shader count. Both parts have 32 texture mapping units and 16 raster output units, so the TMU and ROP counts are identical. The advantage in shading units is what drives the GT 755M's higher theoretical performance: its FP32 throughput is 783.4 GFLOPS, versus 422.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000M. The pixel rate also favors the GT 755M at 8.160 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 32.64 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds reinforce the architecture advantage. The GT 755M runs at a base clock of 980 MHz with a boost clock of 1020 MHz. The Quadro 2000M has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, but its memory clock is 900 MHz, compared to 1350 MHz for the GT 755M. The GT 755M's memory runs at an effective data rate of 5.4 Gbps, while the Quadro 2000M's memory runs at an effective 1800 Mbps. This difference in memory speed is critical for bandwidth-bound workloads.

The memory subsystems also diverge in type and bandwidth. The GT 755M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000M also has 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but it uses DDR3, which limits bandwidth to 28.80 GB/s. That is a threefold difference in memory bandwidth, and it means the Quadro 2000M will struggle to feed its shading units even if the compute core could keep up.

Both parts support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, according to the database. The GT 755M additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000M has no recorded Vulkan support. This could matter for modern applications that rely on Vulkan for cross-platform graphics and compute. The GT 755M also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, whereas the Quadro 2000M uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors, and both are marked as end-of-life products. The GT 755M was released on June 24, 2013, while the Quadro 2000M arrived earlier on January 12, 2011. The GT 755M's predecessor is the GeForce 600M and its successor is the GeForce 800M; the Quadro 2000M's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for raw compute performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M. Its 43.7% lead in OpenCL, double the shading units, nearly double the FP32 throughput, and threefold higher memory bandwidth make it the superior part for any workload that stresses the GPU. The Quadro 2000M, despite its professional branding, is simply outclassed by the newer architecture and faster memory of the GT 755M.

However, the Quadro 2000M is not without its own rationale. It belongs to the Quadro line, which historically targets workstation and professional applications rather than consumer gaming. The database does not record any driver certification differences or professional application benchmarks, so we cannot quantify whether the Quadro's driver stack provides advantages in CAD or scientific visualization. The recorded data shows only compute performance, and in that domain the Quadro loses.

For users who prioritize compute throughput, OpenCL performance, and Vulkan support, the GT 755M is the obvious choice. For users who specifically need a Quadro for compatibility with professional software ecosystems, the Quadro 2000M may still be the only option, but the data suggests they will sacrifice significant performance. The GT 755M also has a lower TDP at 50 W versus 55 W for the Quadro 2000M, which means it delivers more performance while consuming less power. That efficiency advantage is notable in mobile platforms where thermal headroom is limited.

The percentile rankings reinforce the verdict: the GT 755M at the 24th percentile is a modest but serviceable mobile GPU, while the Quadro 2000M at the 21st percentile is further down the performance curve. Neither part is competitive with modern GPUs, but within the context of their respective eras, the GT 755M is the stronger silicon.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. That is a 43.7% advantage for the GT 755M.

Q: Do the two GPUs use the same architecture?

A: No. The GT 755M uses the Kepler architecture with a GK107 chip, while the Quadro 2000M uses the older Fermi architecture with a GF106 chip.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The GT 755M has 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro 2000M has 28.80 GB/s from DDR3 memory. Both use a 128-bit bus and 2 GB capacity.

Q: Does either GPU support Vulkan?

A: The GT 755M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro 2000M has no recorded Vulkan support in the database.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The GT 755M has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The Quadro 2000M has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GT 755M has 384 shading units, exactly double the 192 shading units found in the Quadro 2000M.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 755M wins in every measured category in the database. Its OpenCL score is 43.7% higher, its FP32 throughput is 783.4 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS, its pixel rate is 8.160 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 32.64 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s. It also has faster memory, with 86.40 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, and a higher memory clock of 1350 MHz versus 900 MHz. The GT 755M supports Vulkan, while the Quadro 2000M does not. The GT 755M also has a higher transistor density at 10.8M per square millimeter versus 4.9M, and it consumes less power at 50 W versus 55 W.

The Quadro 2000M does not win any recorded benchmark. Its nearest rival data shows it clustering with low-end parts like the Intel HD Graphics 530 and the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX, where it is within 3.1% either way. But against the GT 755M, it has no victory in any category.

In practical terms, the GT 755M is better suited for compute-heavy tasks such as OpenCL acceleration, video encoding, and any workload that benefits from higher memory bandwidth and more shading units. The Quadro 2000M, despite its professional positioning, does not offer any measured performance advantage. Its only potential edge lies in its Quadro branding, which may matter for software certification in specific professional applications, but the database contains no evidence of that advantage.

Specification Differences

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

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GK107 | GF106 |

| 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 recorded |

| Boost clock | 1020 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory clock | 1350 MHz, 5.4 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory bandwidth | 86.40 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading units | 384 | 192 |

| FP32 | 783.4 GFLOPS | 422.4 GFLOPS |

| Pixel rate | 8.160 GPixel/s | 4.400 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 32.64 GTexel/s | 17.60 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 50 W | 55 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | Not recorded |

| Release date | 2013-06-24 | 2011-01-12 |

| Generation | GeForce 700M | Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) |

The two GPUs share several characteristics: both are MXM modules with no power connectors, both have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, both have 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, both are end-of-life products, and both have display outputs that are portable device dependent. The differences are concentrated in the compute core, memory subsystem, manufacturing process, and API support, all of which favor the GT 755M.