NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single head-to-head benchmark between these two mobile graphics solutions, and it is a narrow contest. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX scores 10,723 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 points. This gives the GTX 675MX a 6.2% advantage, a meaningful but not overwhelming margin. The OpenCL workload appears to favor the older Kepler-based chip, but the gap is small enough that real-world differences in compute-heavy tasks should be modest.

To contextualize these scores, the database places each card against its own set of nearest rivals. The Quadro M2000M sits at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 9,832. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, which averages 9,846 points, a delta of just -0.1%. That is a statistical tie. The M2000M also edges out the AMD FirePro W5000 by 0.3% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 by 0.5%, and it leads the NVIDIA Tesla M10 by 1.1%. These are all extremely tight margins, suggesting the M2000M is a solidly mid-pack performer whose compute output clusters near a well-known group of desktop and workstation cards.

The GTX 675MX, by contrast, holds the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, and its average score is 8,427. That puts it 1,405 points behind its own head-to-head OpenCL result, indicating that the OpenCL test is a particularly favorable workload for this card. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon 880M (averaging 8,436, a delta of -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, -0.4%), and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, -0.4%). It also beats the AMD Radeon R9 M375X by 1.2%. Notice that the 675MX's average benchmark score is lower than its OpenCL score, while the M2000M's average score is only about 200 points below its OpenCL result. This suggests the 675MX is more variable across different workloads, while the M2000M is more consistent.

The single head-to-head result, showing the GTX 675MX ahead by 6.2%, flips the overall percentile ranking. The M2000M ranks higher in percentileVsAllGpus (47 vs 43), but loses the one direct comparison. This is a useful reminder that aggregate scores and individual test results can tell different stories. The data indicates the 675MX has a compute advantage in OpenCL, while the M2000M's broader profile is marginally stronger across a wider range of synthetic workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 675MX wins the only direct benchmark in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test. For users whose primary workload is OpenCL-based compute, this is the relevant data point. The 6.2% margin is not negligible; it translates to a meaningful lead in tasks that scale with raw compute throughput, such as certain rendering, simulation, or data-processing kernels.

The Quadro M2000M, however, wins on aggregate performance. Its average benchmark score of 9,832 is higher than the 675MX's 8,427, a difference of roughly 17%. This is driven by the M2000M's higher percentile ranking (47th vs 43rd) and its closer clustering to its own peak score. The M2000M's OpenCL result of 10,057 is within a few percentage points of its average, while the 675MX's OpenCL result of 10,723 is 27% above its average. The data implies the M2000M delivers more consistent performance across a broader set of tests, while the 675MX is more specialized.

For gaming, the database provides no direct DirectX or Vulkan head-to-head results. But the shading resources tell a story. The 675MX has more shaders (960 vs 640), more texture units (80 vs 40), and more ROPs (32 vs 16), giving it a hardware advantage for fixed-function rendering. The M2000M counters with higher shader clocks (1098 MHz base, 1137 MHz boost) and a better pixel rate (18.19 GPixel/s vs 13.08), but its texture rate is lower (45.48 GTexel/s vs 52.32 GTexel/s). In a typical gaming workload, the 675MX's wider configuration likely holds the edge, but the data does not directly confirm this.

The M2000M wins on memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), which matters for large datasets, multi-layer textures, or compute buffers that exceed 2 GB. The 675MX wins on memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s) thanks to a wider 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, which helps with high-resolution textures and memory-heavy shaders. The M2000M's memory is more efficient per pin, running at 5 Gbps effective versus 3.6 Gbps, but the bandwidth gap favors the 675MX.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures, which explains their divergent behavior. The Quadro M2000M is built on Maxwell, using the GM107 chip. The GeForce GTX 675MX is based on Kepler, using the GK104 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the die sizes differ substantially: the GM107 measures 148 mm², while the GK104 is much larger at 294 mm². The transistor count also diverges, with the M2000M packing 1,870 million transistors versus 3,540 million on the 675MX. The transistor density is slightly higher on Maxwell (12.6 million per mm² vs 12.0 million per mm²), reflecting a more modern design.

The memory subsystems differ. The M2000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The 675MX uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 115.2 GB/s. Both are GDDR5, but the wider bus on the 675MX is a clear architectural advantage for bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

The compute configurations are also different. The M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 675MX has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The 675MX has 50% more shaders and double the TMU/ROP counts. Yet the M2000M achieves a higher FP32 throughput (1,455.4 GFLOPS vs 1,255.7 GFLOPS) because of its higher clock speeds. The M2000M's pixel rate (18.19 GPixel/s) exceeds the 675MX's (13.08 GPixel/s), but the 675MX's texture rate (52.32 GTexel/s) is higher than the M2000M's (45.48 GTexel/s). These numbers show a trade-off: the M2000M is more balanced, while the 675MX is built for parallel execution.

The memory clock differs as well. The M2000M runs at 1253 MHz, producing 5 Gbps effective. The 675MX runs at 900 MHz, producing 3.6 Gbps effective. The effective bandwidth is higher on the 675MX, but the memory latency profile may differ, though the database does not provide latency data.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The M2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the 675MX has a TDP of 100 W. This nearly 2x difference is significant for mobile designs. The M2000M is rated for MXM-A (3.0), while the 675MX uses MXM-B (3.0). Both are MXM modules, but the 675MX likely requires a larger thermal solution.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the 675MX supports Vulkan 1.2.175. This is a generational difference in API support. The M2000M is newer, with a release date in December 2015, while the 675MX launched in September 2012. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The database shows a clear split. The GeForce GTX 675MX wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 6.2%. It also has a substantial hardware advantage in shader count, texture units, and memory bandwidth. For users who prioritize compute-heavy workloads that favor OpenCL, and who have a system that can handle its 100 W TDP, the 675MX is the stronger choice.

The Quadro M2000M wins on aggregate performance. Its average benchmark score of 9,832 is 1,405 points higher than the 675MX's 8,427. It also ranks higher in the percentile distribution (47th vs 43rd). Its lower TDP (55 W vs 100 W) makes it a more efficient solution for the same thermal envelope. It has 4 GB of VRAM, which doubles the 675MX's 2 GB, useful for large datasets. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is also newer.

Choose the Quadro M2000M if you need consistent performance across a variety of workloads, want more memory, or are constrained by power consumption. Choose the GeForce GTX 675MX if you need the highest possible OpenCL compute score and can tolerate higher power draw. Neither card is a clear winner; they serve different priorities.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, which is higher than the GeForce GTX 675MX's average of 8,427.

Q: Which GPU wins the recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The GeForce GTX 675MX wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 10,723, beating the M2000M's 10,057 by 6.2%.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GeForce GTX 675MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GeForce GTX 675MX has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, which is higher than the M2000M's 80.19 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the GeForce GTX 675MX has a TDP of 100 W.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, and the GeForce GTX 675MX supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

| Chip | GM107 | GK104 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1098 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1137 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 960 |

| TMUs | 40 | 80 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.19 GPixel/s | 13.08 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.48 GTexel/s | 52.32 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,455.4 GFLOPS | 1,255.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 100 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | December 2015 | September 2012 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | GeForce 500M |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | GeForce 700M |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 10057 | 10723 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 9832 | 8427 |

| Percentile | 47th | 43rd |