NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M scores 6,946. That is a delta of -65.5% for the GTX 675M, meaning the Quadro P2000 delivers roughly three times the raw OpenCL compute performance. This is not a marginal generational improvement; it is a fundamental shift in compute capability.

Looking at the broader context, the GTX 675M sits near several low-end and mid-range mobile parts. Its average benchmark score is 6,946, placing it just behind the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6,975, delta -0.4%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7,023, delta -1.1%). It also trails the NVIDIA T600 (7,035, delta -1.3%) by a hair. The only rival it beats in this cluster is the AMD FirePro M5100 (6,830, delta +1.7%). These are all tight margins, within a couple of percentage points, which suggests the GTX 675M is performing at the upper edge of its expected class.

The Quadro P2000, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 6,049 across all its recorded tests, which is actually lower than its OpenCL score alone. That is because its benchmark suite includes several Passmark tests with much lower scores, such as Passmark DirectX 12 at 28 and Passmark DirectX 10 at 34. Its Passmark G3D score is 6,956, which is nearly identical to the GTX 675M's OpenCL score. The Quadro P2000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077, delta -0.5%), the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6,078, delta -0.5%), the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, delta +0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6,001, delta +0.8%). These deltas are all under a single percentage point, meaning the Quadro P2000 is squarely in the middle of a very tightly packed field of modern low-profile and entry-level desktop GPUs.

The single OpenCL head-to-head is the only place where the two cards meet in the database, and the Quadro P2000 wins that one. The GTX 675M has zero recorded benchmark wins against the P2000, while the P2000 has one. The data does not offer any other direct comparison points, so the compute gap is the primary quantitative story.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural eras. The GTX 675M is built on the GF114 chip using Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip with Pascal architecture, also from TSMC but on a 16 nm process. The process node difference is substantial: 40 nm versus 16 nm. This explains much of the efficiency and density gap between the two.

Transistor counts tell the story of scale. The GTX 675M packs 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, which works out to a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Quadro P2000 has 4,400 million transistors on a much smaller 200 mm² die, giving it a density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. That is nearly four times the density of the Fermi part, a direct consequence of the newer process.

Memory configurations also differ sharply. The GTX 675M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, with memory clocked at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160 bit bus, with memory at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 140.2 GB/s. The P2000 has more capacity and higher bandwidth, but a narrower bus. The GTX 675M's wider bus does not compensate for the lower effective clock.

Shader and texture resources are also very different. The GTX 675M has 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The P2000 has nearly three times the shading units and more ROPs, while TMU count is identical. Pixel rate for the GTX 675M is 9.920 GPixel/s and texture rate is 39.68 GTexel/s. The Quadro P2000 reaches 59.20 GPixel/s and 94.72 GTexel/s. Compute throughput is where the gap becomes enormous: the GTX 675M delivers 952.3 GFLOPS of FP32, while the P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS, more than three times as much.

Power and physical design also separate them. The GTX 675M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W, a single-slot design, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The P2000 is a desktop card with PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The GTX 675M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

API support also differs. The GTX 675M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan is listed. The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level difference (11_0 vs 12_1) is notable for modern game compatibility.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-heavy workloads: the Quadro P2000. Its OpenCL score of 20,125 versus 6,946 for the GTX 675M is a 65.5% gap in favor of the newer card. The P2000 also has more shaders, higher pixel and texture rates, and over three times the FP32 throughput. Anyone running OpenCL compute, GPU-accelerated rendering, or professional visualization workloads should pick the P2000 without hesitation.

The GTX 675M is not without merit. It has a wider memory bus, 256 bit versus 160 bit, and a lower TDP relative to its own era. It belongs to an older generation, and its performance class is closer to modern entry-level mobile GPUs like the Radeon R5 M240 or the GeForce GTX 680M, as the nearest rival data shows. Its percentile standing among all GPUs is 39, compared to 35 for the P2000. That percentile difference is small, and partly reflects the fact that the P2000's average score is dragged down by low Passmark DirectX numbers.

For legacy compatibility or systems that require an MXM module, the GTX 675M is the only option of the two. For anything else, the P2000 is the stronger card. The generation gap is simply too large for the Fermi part to compete in raw compute, memory bandwidth, or feature support.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 675M uses the GF114 chip on Fermi 2.0 architecture, while the P2000 uses GP106 on Pascal. Process node is 40 nm versus 16 nm. Transistor count is 1,950 million versus 4,400 million. Die size is 332 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density is 5.9M per mm² versus 22.0M per mm².

Clock speeds: the GTX 675M has no base or boost clock listed, but memory runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The P2000 has a base clock of 1076 MHz and boost of 1480 MHz, with memory at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Memory: 2 GB versus 5 GB, both GDDR5. Bus width is 256 bit versus 160 bit. Bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 140.2 GB/s.

Compute resources: 384 shading units versus 1,024. TMUs are equal at 64. ROPs are 32 versus 40. Pixel rate is 9.920 GPixel/s versus 59.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 39.68 GTexel/s versus 94.72 GTexel/s. FP32 is 952.3 GFLOPS versus 3.031 TFLOPS. The P2000 also lists FP16 at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GTX 675M has no FP16 figure.

Power and physical: TDP is 100 W versus 75 W. Slot width is MXM Module versus single-slot. Power connectors are None for both, but the P2000 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. Bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The P2000 has dimensions of 196 mm length and 111 mm height.

API support: DirectX 12 (11_0) versus DirectX 12 (12_1). OpenGL 4.6 for both. Vulkan is absent for the GTX 675M and listed as 1.4 for the P2000.

Release dates: the GTX 675M launched on 2012-03-21, the P2000 on 2017-02-05. Both are end-of-life. The GTX 675M's predecessor is GeForce 500M and successor is GeForce 700M. The P2000's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and successor is Quadro Volta.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 675M scores 6,946. The delta is -65.5% for the GTX 675M.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The GTX 675M has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What are the transistor counts?

A: The GTX 675M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The Quadro P2000 has 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports Vulkan 1.4. No Vulkan support is listed for the GTX 675M.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The GTX 675M has a TDP of 100 W. The Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W.

Q: Do the cards have the same DirectX support?

A: No. The GTX 675M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins in every direct benchmark comparison available. It has the higher OpenCL score, the higher FP32 throughput, more shading units, more ROPs, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, more memory, and higher memory bandwidth. It also supports Vulkan and a higher DirectX feature level. For compute tasks, modern API support, and professional rendering, the P2000 is the clear choice.

The GTX 675M wins in a few narrow areas. It has a wider memory bus at 256 bit versus 160 bit. It has a higher percentile standing among all GPUs at 39 versus 35. It uses an MXM module form factor, which may be required in certain laptop or portable systems. Its nearest rival cluster includes the GeForce GTX 680M and T600, both within 1.3% of its score, meaning it is competitive with those parts.

The data also shows the GTX 675M is closer in average score to its rivals than the P2000 is to its own. The GTX 675M's nearest rivals are within 1.7% either way, while the P2000's nearest rivals are within 0.8%. That means the P2000 is more tightly grouped with its competition, while the GTX 675M has slightly more variance in its comparison set.

For gamers or users running DirectX 9, 10, 11, or 12 workloads, the P2000 has recorded Passmark scores in all of those categories, while the GTX 675M has no such entries. The P2000's Passmark G3D score of 6,956 and GPU compute score of 2,933 give it a broader benchmark profile. The GTX 675M has only one benchmark entry, the Geekbench OpenCL test.

The use-case split is therefore simple. If the workload is modern, compute-heavy, or API-demanding, the Quadro P2000 dominates. If the system is an older portable device requiring an MXM module and the workload is light or legacy, the GTX 675M remains functional. The generation gap from Fermi 2.0 to Pascal is the deciding factor, and it shows up clearly in every recorded metric.