NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M compare to the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 in overall benchmark scores?

A: The GeForce GTX 680M has an average benchmark score of 7023, while the Quadro P2000 averages 6049. This places the GTX 680M in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 35th percentile for the Quadro P2000.

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Quadro P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is significantly higher than the GTX 680M's 2.038 TFLOPS. This represents roughly a 49% advantage for the Quadro P2000 in pure floating-point compute.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card according to the database?

A: The GTX 680M sits near the NVIDIA T600 (7035 average score, 0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6975, 0.7% lower), and the GeForce GTX 675M (6946, 1.1% lower). The Quadro P2000 is positioned close to the GeForce MX230 (6077, 0.5% higher), RTX A400 (6078, 0.5% higher), and Radeon 760M (6019, 0.5% lower).

Q: Which card has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P2000 offers 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to 115.2 GB/s for the GTX 680M. The Quadro achieves this with a narrower 160-bit bus but faster 7 Gbps effective memory, while the GTX 680M uses a 256-bit bus with 3.6 Gbps effective memory.

Q: What is the difference in pixel and texture processing rates?

A: The Quadro P2000 has a pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s versus 21.22 GPixel/s for the GTX 680M, a substantial gap. The texture rates are closer: 94.72 GTexel/s for the Quadro versus 84.90 GTexel/s for the GTX 680M.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 680M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process technologies. The GeForce GTX 680M is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro P2000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP106 chip, also from TSMC but on a 16 nm node. This process shrink allows the Quadro P2000 to pack 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The GTX 680M has 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 12.0M per mm².

The core configurations differ notably. The GTX 680M has more shading units (1344 versus 1024) and more texture mapping units (112 versus 64), but fewer ROPs (32 versus 40). Clock speeds favor the Quadro P2000 substantially: it runs at a base of 1076 MHz with a boost of 1480 MHz, while the GTX 680M operates at 719 MHz base and 758 MHz boost. The Quadro's higher clocks and newer architecture more than compensate for its fewer shaders in most workloads.

Memory subsystems present an interesting contrast. The GTX 680M uses a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro P2000 has a 160-bit bus with 5 GB of GDDR5. Despite the narrower bus, the Quadro achieves higher bandwidth (140.2 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s) thanks to its faster 7 Gbps effective memory clock versus 3.6 Gbps on the GTX 680M.

Form factor and connectivity also differ. The GTX 680M is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0), designed for portable devices, and its display outputs are marked as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro P2000 is a single-slot card using PCIe 3.0 x16, with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Power requirements favor the Quadro at 75 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 680M draws 100 W with no power connectors listed. Neither card has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. The GeForce GTX 680M holds a higher average benchmark score (7023 versus 6049) and a higher percentile ranking (39th versus 35th), making it the stronger choice when looking at overall database standing among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA T600 and GeForce GTX 970, placing it in respectable company.

However, the Quadro P2000 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded: Geekbench OpenCL shows the Quadro scoring 20125 against the GTX 680M's 9230, a delta of 54.1% in favor of the Quadro. This massive compute advantage aligns with its higher FP32 throughput (3.031 TFLOPS versus 2.038 TFLOPS) and faster pixel rate (59.20 GPixel/s versus 21.22 GPixel/s).

Choose the GTX 680M if the priority is overall benchmark standing and compatibility with the GeForce 600M generation ecosystem, particularly in MXM portable implementations. Choose the Quadro P2000 for tasks that stress compute workloads, as evidenced by the OpenCL result, and for newer API support including DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro also offers more VRAM (5 GB versus 4 GB) and lower power consumption (75 W versus 100 W), which may matter in constrained systems.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GK104 versus GP106
• Architecture: Kepler versus Pascal
• Generation: GeForce 600M versus Quadro Pascal (Px000)
• Process Node: 28 nm versus 16 nm
• Transistors: 3,540 million versus 4,400 million
• Die Size: 294 mm² versus 200 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.0M / mm² versus 22.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 719 MHz versus 1076 MHz
• Boost Clock: 758 MHz versus 1480 MHz
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz, 3.6 Gbps effective versus 1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 4 GB versus 5 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus 160 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 115.2 GB/s versus 140.2 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1344 versus 1024
• TMUs: 112 versus 64
• ROPs: 32 versus 40
• Pixel Rate: 21.22 GPixel/s versus 59.20 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 84.90 GTexel/s versus 94.72 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.038 TFLOPS versus 3.031 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed versus 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: 100 W versus 75 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module versus Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: Not listed versus 250 W
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.175 versus 1.4
• Dimensions: No length/height listed versus 196 mm length, 111 mm height
• Release Date: 2012-06-03 versus 2017-02-05

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between these two GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P2000 scores 20125 while the GTX 680M scores 9230. The delta percentage is 54.1% in favor of the Quadro P2000, meaning the GTX 680M trails by more than half of its own score. This is a decisive victory for the Pascal card in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads.

Beyond the direct comparison, the broader benchmark suites reveal more context. The Quadro P2000 has nine recorded benchmark scores, including PassMark tests across DirectX 9 (124), DirectX 10 (34), DirectX 11 (47), DirectX 12 (28), G2D (626), G3D (6956), and GPU compute (2933). Its best score comes from Geekbench Vulkan at 23566, followed by OpenCL at 20125. The GTX 680M has only two recorded benchmarks: Geekbench Metal at 4815 and Geekbench OpenCL at 9230, with an average of 7023.

The average benchmark scores tell an interesting story. The GTX 680M's average of 7023 is higher than the Quadro P2000's 6049, yet the Quadro wins the OpenCL head-to-head by a wide margin. This suggests the GTX 680M benefits from its Metal score and possibly different workload distributions across the tests it appears in. The Quadro P2000's average is dragged down by its low PassMark DirectX scores, which are all below 124, while its G3D score of 6956 and Geekbench scores are competitive.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 dominates in raw compute and modern API scenarios. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20125 is more than double the GTX 680M's 9230, and its FP32 throughput of 3.031 TFLOPS gives it a clear edge for general-purpose GPU compute. The pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s versus 21.22 GPixel/s suggests the Quadro handles fill-rate-intensive tasks much better. Additionally, the Quadro supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, enabling newer rendering paths that the GTX 680M cannot access with its DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175 support. The 5 GB memory capacity and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth also favor the Quadro for larger datasets.

The GTX 680M wins in overall benchmark standing. Its average score of 7023 places it in the 39th percentile versus the Quadro's 35th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA T600 and GeForce GTX 970, both of which score above 7000. The GTX 680M also has more shading units (1344 versus 1024) and more TMUs (112 versus 64), which could benefit certain shader-heavy workloads despite the lower clocks. Its 256-bit memory bus provides a wider path, even though the effective bandwidth is lower.

For portable applications, the GTX 680M's MXM form factor makes it suitable for laptop and mobile workstations, while the Quadro P2000's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and single-slot design target desktop systems. The Quadro's lower TDP of 75 W (versus 100 W) and specified 250 W PSU requirement make it easier to integrate into power-constrained builds. Ultimately, the choice depends on whether the workload prioritizes overall database ranking (GTX 680M) or raw compute and modern API support (Quadro P2000).