NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has an average benchmark score of 14532, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 scores 13300, giving the Quadro a 9.7% lead in the recorded head-to-head OpenCL test.

Q: How does the Quadro M2000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro M2000 sits at the 56th percentile of all GPUs. It is 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 965M, 1% ahead of the Radeon RX Vega 11, and 1.1% ahead of the GeForce GTX TITAN. It trails the Radeon RX 5500 XT by 1.1%.

Q: Where does the GeForce GTX 480 rank among all GPUs?

A: The GeForce GTX 480 sits at the 53rd percentile. Its average score of 13300 places it 0.2% behind the Radeon Pro 555X, 0.4% behind the FirePro M6100 and Radeon RX 5500M, and 0.6% behind the Radeon HD 8950M.

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two cards?

A: The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the GeForce GTX 480 has 1536 MB (1.5 GB) of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth despite its smaller bus width?

A: The GeForce GTX 480 has a higher memory bandwidth at 177.4 GB/s, owing to its wider 384-bit bus, compared to the Quadro M2000's 105.8 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the difference in power connector requirements?

A: The Quadro M2000 requires no power connectors and has a 75 W TDP, whereas the GeForce GTX 480 requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector with a 250 W TDP.

Architecture Differences

The two NVIDIA cards belong to different architectural generations, which explains most of their performance and feature divergences.

The Quadro M2000 is built on the GM206 chip, using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 2,940 million transistors into a 228 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. The Maxwell 2.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it powers 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs.

The GeForce GTX 480 uses the GF100 chip, built on the older Fermi architecture. It is fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC, with 3,100 million transistors on a significantly larger 529 mm² die. The transistor density is lower at 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Fermi architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but offers no Vulkan support. It has 480 shading units, 60 TMUs, and 48 ROPs.

The compute capabilities differ sharply. The Quadro M2000 delivers 1.786 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 480 delivers 1,345.0 GFLOPS (1.345 TFLOPS). The pixel rate is also higher on the Quadro at 37.22 GPixel/s versus 21.03 GPixel/s on the GTX 480, and the texture rate is 55.82 GTexel/s versus 42.06 GTexel/s.

Power consumption is another major architectural consequence. The Quadro M2000 has a TDP of 75 W and needs no external power connectors, while the GTX 480 has a 250 W TDP and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector. The GTX 480 also suggests a 600 W power supply, whereas the Quadro M2000 suggests only 250 W.

The bus interface also differs: the Quadro M2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 480 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 standard. Display outputs are another differentiator, with the Quadro M2000 offering 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and the GTX 480 offering 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single recorded head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the Quadro M2000 scores 14588, while the GeForce GTX 480 scores 13300. The Quadro wins with a delta of 9.7%.

That 9.7% margin is consistent with the average score gap. The Quadro's average score is 14532, and the GTX 480's is 13300, which means the Quadro holds a consistent lead across the recorded benchmark data.

To interpret the magnitude: the Quadro M2000 is 0.9% ahead of its closest rival, the GeForce GTX 965M, and 1.1% ahead of the GTX TITAN. Its 9.7% lead over the GTX 480 is therefore a substantial gap, roughly ten times larger than the margins between the Quadro and its immediate competition. The GTX 480, by contrast, is nearly tied with its own nearest rivals, sitting 0.2% to 0.6% behind several AMD laptop and workstation parts.

This suggests that the GTX 480 is not merely slightly slower in the synthetic test but belongs to a different performance tier, despite its older, larger die. The Quadro's newer architecture and higher clock efficiency deliver a decisive victory in raw compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category:

• Process node: 28 nm (Quadro M2000) versus 40 nm (GTX 480).
• Die size: 228 mm² versus 529 mm².
• Transistor count: 2,940 million versus 3,100 million.
• Transistor density: 12.9M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm².
• Base clock: 796 MHz (Quadro) versus no base clock listed (GTX).
• Boost clock: 1163 MHz (Quadro) versus no boost clock listed (GTX).
• Memory clock: 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) versus 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 1536 MB.
• Memory bus width: 128 bit versus 384 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 105.8 GB/s versus 177.4 GB/s.
• Shading units: 768 versus 480.
• TMUs: 48 versus 60.
• ROPs: 32 versus 48.
• FP32 performance: 1.786 TFLOPS versus 1,345.0 GFLOPS.
• Pixel rate: 37.22 GPixel/s versus 21.03 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 55.82 GTexel/s versus 42.06 GTexel/s.
• TDP: 75 W versus 250 W.
• Power connectors: None versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 600 W.
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.
• DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus null.
• Dimensions: 201 mm length (111 mm height) versus 267 mm length.
• Release date: 2016-04-07 versus 2010-03-25.
• Launch MSRP: The GTX 480 has a launch MSRP of 499 USD; the Quadro M2000 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear winner in raw compute performance: the Quadro M2000. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, holds a higher average score, and sits at a higher percentile (56th versus 53rd). The 9.7% delta in the Geekbench OpenCL test is substantial, especially when compared to the tight margins between either card and its own nearest rivals.

However, the GTX 480 is not without its advantages. It has a much higher memory bandwidth (177.4 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s) and a wider 384-bit memory bus, which suggests it could handle memory-bandwidth-bound workloads better. It also has more ROPs (48 versus 32) and more TMUs (60 versus 48), which historically aids in certain rasterization tasks.

For compute and modern API workloads, the Quadro M2000 is the clear choice. It offers superior FP32 throughput, better pixel and texture rates, DirectX 12.1 support, Vulkan support, and consumes a fraction of the power (75 W versus 250 W). For legacy applications that rely on raw memory throughput or older driver paths, the GTX 480 might hold some relevance, but its 2010 architecture lacks modern features and its performance ceiling is lower.

The data shows no contest in the direct comparison: the Quadro M2000 wins the benchmark, has a higher percentile, and delivers better efficiency metrics. The GTX 480's advantages are isolated to memory capacity, bus width, and raw bandwidth, which do not translate to a win in the recorded tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M2000 wins in the following categories based on recorded data:

• Compute performance: 9.7% ahead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark.
• FP32 throughput: 1.786 TFLOPS versus 1,345.0 GFLOPS.
• Pixel fill rate: 37.22 GPixel/s versus 21.03 GPixel/s.
• Texture fill rate: 55.82 GTexel/s versus 42.06 GTexel/s.
• Power efficiency: 75 W TDP with no power connectors versus 250 W with dual connectors.
• Modern API support: DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 versus DirectX 11_0 and no Vulkan.
• Memory capacity: 4 GB versus 1536 MB, which is more than double.
• PCIe bandwidth: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display connectivity: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 2x DVI and mini-HDMI.

The GeForce GTX 480 wins in these specific areas:

• Memory bandwidth: 177.4 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s, a 68% advantage.
• Memory bus width: 384 bit versus 128 bit.
• Texture mapping units: 60 versus 48.
• ROPs: 48 versus 32.
• Die area: 529 mm² versus 228 mm², indicating a larger physical chip.

In practical terms, the Quadro M2000 is the better card for any workload that is compute-bound, uses modern graphics APIs, or needs large frame buffers. The GTX 480's only hope would be a scenario where the application is heavily constrained by memory bandwidth and does not benefit from the Quadro's newer architecture or its better shading efficiency. Given the benchmark data, the Quadro is the more capable and future-proof option.