NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M scores 4855 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. The GTX 560M wins this head-to-head test by 19.1%.

Q: Are these GPUs based on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. Both chips also have identical transistor counts of 1,170 million and the same die size of 238 mm².

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The GTX 560M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory, compared to 1024 MB on the Quadro 2000D. The GTX 560M also uses a wider 192-bit memory bus, giving it 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus 41.60 GB/s.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Quadro 2000D has a 62 W TDP, while the GTX 560M has a 75 W TDP. The Quadro also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 560M does not have a PSU rating in the database.

Q: Which GPU holds up better against its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 560M sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, slightly ahead of the Quadro 2000D's 23rd percentile. The GTX 560M is within 0.9% of cards like the GeForce GTS 450 and RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, while the Quadro 2000D is within 0.7% of the GeForce 830M and Radeon R5 M420.

Q: Do both support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Neither supports Vulkan in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs trace their lineage to the Fermi family, but they are not identical implementations. The Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip under the base Fermi architecture, while the GTX 560M uses the GF116 chip under the Fermi 2.0 revision. Despite this distinction, the two chips share the same fundamental building blocks: 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, fabricated at TSMC on a 40 nm process. The transistor density works out to 4.9M per mm² for both.

The core configurations are largely parallel. Each GPU carries 192 shading units and 32 texture mapping units. The key divergence appears at the render output stage: the Quadro 2000D has 16 ROPs, while the GTX 560M has 24 ROPs. That extra ROP count gives the GTX 560M a measurable advantage in pixel throughput, which shows up in its 6.200 GPixel/s pixel rate versus the Quadro's 5.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors the GTX 560M at 24.80 GTexel/s compared to 20.00 GTexel/s.

The memory subsystems differ significantly. The Quadro 2000D pairs 1024 MB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, yielding 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 560M steps up to 1536 MB on a 192-bit bus, pushing bandwidth to 60.00 GB/s. Memory clocks are close, with the Quadro running at 2.6 Gbps effective and the GTX 560M at 2.5 Gbps effective, but the wider bus does the heavy lifting. The compute output also favors the GTX 560M: 595.2 GFLOPS FP32 versus 480.0 GFLOPS on the Quadro.

The form factor and connectivity tell a different story. The Quadro 2000D is a single-slot desktop card, 178 mm long and 111 mm tall, with two DVI outputs and no power connectors required. The GTX 560M is an MXM module, meaning it is designed for mobile workstations and laptops, with display output dependent on the host device. Both are end-of-life products, but they serve entirely different physical environments.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 560M wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 19.1% margin. That translates to a clear lead in general compute workloads that exercise the GPU through OpenCL. The GTX 560M also holds a higher percentile ranking at 28 versus 23, and it outclasses the Quadro in raw memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. For anyone running OpenCL-based tasks, video processing, or general parallel compute, the recorded data points firmly to the GTX 560M.

The Quadro 2000D has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. However, its advantages appear in practical deployment rather than raw speed. It is a single-slot desktop card with a lower 62 W TDP, no auxiliary power connector, and a modest 250 W suggested PSU. That makes it easier to slot into existing desktop workstations with limited power headroom. Its 2x DVI outputs are fixed and known, which simplifies multi-monitor setups in professional environments. The GTX 560M, being an MXM module, depends entirely on the laptop or mobile chassis for its display outputs and power delivery, so it is not a drop-in replacement for a desktop card.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Quadro 2000D | GTX 560M |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Fermi 2.0 |

| Chip | GF106 | GF116 |

| Generation | Quadro Fermi (x000) | GeForce 500M |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 1536 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 41.60 GB/s | 60.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2.6 Gbps effective | 2.5 Gbps effective |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.000 GPixel/s | 6.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.00 GTexel/s | 24.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 480.0 GFLOPS | 595.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 62 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

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

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 178 mm x 111 mm | None recorded |

| Release Date | 2011-10-04 | 2011-05-29 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Tesla | GeForce 400M |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler | GeForce 600M |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | None |

The shading units and TMUs are identical at 192 and 32, respectively. Both use GDDR5 memory, both are 40 nm parts from TSMC, and both share the same 1,170 million transistor count and 238 mm² die. The DirectX and OpenGL support are also identical.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 560M scores 4855, while the Quadro 2000D scores 3930. The delta is 19.1% in favor of the GTX 560M, and the GTX 560M takes the sole win in the win column.

To put that score in context, the GTX 560M lands within 0.8% of the GeForce GTS 450 (4893) and within 0.9% of the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901). It also edges out the GeForce 940MX, which scores 4844, by 0.2%. The Quadro 2000D, by contrast, sits within 0.3% of the Quadro K2000D (3919) and within 0.7% of the GeForce 830M (3957) and Radeon R5 M420 (3956). The performance gap between the two cards is substantial enough that the GTX 560M lands closer to a modern mainstream desktop GPU like the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB than it does to the Quadro 2000D, despite the RTX card being a much newer product.

The GTX 560M's advantages in pixel rate (24% higher), texture rate (24% higher), and FP32 (24% higher) align with the OpenCL results. The extra ROPs and wider memory bus contribute directly to these throughput gains. The Quadro 2000D does not close the gap in any measured metric within this comparison.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on raw performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M is the faster GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 19.1%, holds a higher percentile rank (28 vs 23), and leads in every throughput metric recorded, including bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute. Anyone choosing between these two strictly for compute or OpenCL workloads should pick the GTX 560M without hesitation.

The Quadro 2000D remains viable only in specific deployment scenarios. Its 62 W TDP, single-slot profile, and lack of power connectors make it a low-friction addition to a desktop workstation. The fixed dual DVI outputs are predictable for multi-monitor setups. It also carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which reflects its original professional positioning, but no pricing data exists for the GTX 560M in the database to compare.

The GTX 560M, as an MXM module, is not a direct alternative for desktop builders. It is a mobile part, and its usability depends on the host laptop or workstation chassis. In a mobile context, however, it delivers clearly superior performance. The GTX 560M also had an earlier release date of 2011-05-29 versus the Quadro's 2011-10-04, and its successor is the GeForce 600M line, whereas the Quadro's successor is Quadro Kepler.

For a desktop workstation where low power and a simple slot-in install matter more than raw compute, the Quadro 2000D is the practical choice. For anyone seeking the higher OpenCL score, better memory bandwidth, or stronger overall throughput, the GTX 560M is the only logical pick based on the recorded measurements. The 19.1% performance gap is too large to ignore, and the GTX 560M's proximity to the GeForce GTS 450 and even the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB in the benchmark data reinforces that it is the more capable part.