NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The data presents a curious matchup between two end-of-life NVIDIA professional and consumer graphics cards. The GeForce GTX 560 Ti, a desktop part from 2011, and the Quadro M2000M, a mobile workstation part from 2015, are separated by four years of architectural evolution. Their benchmark scores, however, tell a story of a surprisingly close contest, where the older card edges out the newer one in raw compute but the newer card brings a different set of capabilities to the table.

Where Each One Wins

The single head-to-head benchmark in the data provides a clear, if narrow, split. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti wins the only direct comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 10,690 against the Quadro M2000M's 10,057. This 6.3% advantage is the sole numerical victory, and it suggests that for raw, compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL, the older Fermi architecture retains a slight edge in this specific test.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M counters by winning in the broader context of software ecosystem support. While it loses the OpenCL test, it possesses a distinct advantage in its API support list. The data shows the Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, a modern graphics API that the GTX 560 Ti completely lacks, as its Vulkan field is null. This is not a benchmark win, but a feature win. For any application that can use the Vulkan API, the GTX 560 Ti is not an option, making the Quadro the only choice between the two.

Furthermore, the Quadro M2000M has a benchmark score for Geekbench Vulkan of 9,606, which demonstrates it has a measurable performance level in that API. The GTX 560 Ti has no such score because it lacks the hardware or driver support. Therefore, the "win" for the Quadro is in compatibility and future-proofing for software that has moved to Vulkan, while the GTX 560 Ti's win is in the specific OpenCL benchmark included in this data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The GTX 560 Ti uses the GF114 chip, built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This results in a die size of 332 mm² containing 1,950 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M / mm². Its memory configuration is a 256-bit bus with 1024 MB of GDDR5, providing a bandwidth of 128.3 GB/s.

In contrast, the Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip, based on the Maxwell architecture, manufactured on a more advanced 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This allows for a significantly smaller die size of 148 mm² while packing a similar number of transistors (1,870 million), resulting in a much higher transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The Quadro opts for a 128-bit memory bus, but pairs it with a larger 4 GB frame buffer of GDDR5, though its bandwidth is lower at 80.19 GB/s. The GTX 560 Ti's advantage in memory bandwidth is clear, while the Quadro's advantage lies in memory capacity.

The compute core layouts also differ significantly. The GTX 560 Ti has 384 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro M2000M, despite having fewer TMUs (40) and ROPs (16), has a much higher count of shading units at 640. This architectural divergence leads to different theoretical peak performance figures: the GTX 560 Ti achieves a pixel rate of 13.17 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 52.67 GTexel/s, while the Quadro achieves a higher pixel rate of 18.19 GPixel/s but a lower texture rate of 45.48 GTexel/s. The GTX 560 Ti also has a higher FP32 throughput of 1,263.4 GFLOPS, but the Quadro M2000M surpasses it with 1,455.4 GFLOPS. This suggests the Quadro is more efficient at raw floating-point math per core, while the GTX 560 Ti excels at texture-heavy work.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results show the GTX 560 Ti scoring 10,690 points, while the Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 points. This translates to a delta of 6.3% in favor of the GTX 560 Ti. This is a significant margin, but it is important to consider the context. The GTX 560 Ti's victory is likely driven by its substantially higher memory bandwidth (128.3 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s) and its larger number of ROPs (32 vs 16), which can be critical for certain types of compute workloads that are memory-bound or require high fill rates.

The Quadro M2000M, despite losing, is not far behind. Its higher shading unit count (640 vs 384) and higher FP32 throughput (1,455.4 GFLOPS vs 1,263.4 GFLOPS) likely help it close the gap. However, the GTX 560 Ti's advantage in the memory subsystem appears to be the deciding factor in this particular test. The Quadro's lone other benchmark, the Geekbench Vulkan test, results in a score of 9,606, but there is no comparable score for the GTX 560 Ti, so a direct head-to-head comparison is impossible. The data does not show the GTX 560 Ti supporting Vulkan, which is a clear differentiator.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti is faster, scoring 10,690 compared to the Quadro M2000M's 10,057, a 6.3% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000M support any API that the GTX 560 Ti does not?

A: Yes. The Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 560 Ti has no Vulkan support listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has a 4 GB frame buffer, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti has a smaller 1024 MB frame buffer.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 (single-precision) performance rating?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has a higher FP32 rating at 1,455.4 GFLOPS, compared to the GTX 560 Ti's 1,263.4 GFLOPS.

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

A: The GTX 560 Ti has a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 128.3 GB/s, whereas the Quadro M2000M has a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has a higher pixel rate of 18.19 GPixel/s, compared to the GTX 560 Ti's 13.17 GPixel/s.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the choice between these two GPUs depends entirely on the user's priorities. For a workload that is heavily reliant on the OpenCL API and benefits from high memory bandwidth and a wider memory bus, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti is the stronger performer. Its 6.3% lead in the only direct benchmark is a tangible, measurable advantage. Its 256-bit memory bus and 128.3 GB/s of bandwidth are clear assets for data-intensive tasks.

For a user whose software stack has adopted the Vulkan API, the choice is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is the only option, as the GTX 560 Ti has no Vulkan support. Furthermore, the Quadro's 4 GB of memory is a substantial advantage over the GTX 560 Ti's 1 GB, making it the more suitable choice for applications that require large textures or datasets that exceed the GTX 560 Ti's limited frame buffer. The Quadro also achieves a higher FP32 performance rating (1,455.4 GFLOPS) and a higher pixel rate (18.19 GPixel/s), indicating it may be more efficient in specific compute and rasterization scenarios despite losing the OpenCL benchmark. Ultimately, the GTX 560 Ti wins on raw legacy compute performance, while the Quadro M2000M wins on modern API support, memory capacity, and efficiency.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key differences between the two GPUs based on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M |

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

| Chip | GF114 | GM107 |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | N/A | 1098 MHz |

| Boost Clock | N/A | 1137 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.3 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 640 |

| TMUs | 64 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 13.17 GPixel/s | 18.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.67 GTexel/s | 45.48 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,263.4 GFLOPS | 1,455.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 170 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | N/A |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan API | N/A | 1.4 |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 10690 | 10057 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | N/A | 9606 |