NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available between these two NVIDIA parts is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisively lopsided. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti scores 10,827, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M manages 3,434. That represents a 68.3% deficit for the Quadro 2000M relative to the GTX 750 Ti, meaning the GTX 750 Ti delivers over three times the raw compute throughput in this workload.

This single benchmark outcome is consistent with the broader performance context provided by each card's nearest rivals. The Quadro 2000M's average benchmark score of 3,434 places it in the 21st percentile of all GPUs, a modest standing that puts it in company with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (which scores 3,431, just 0.1% behind) and the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3,389, 1.3% behind). The GTX 750 Ti, despite its much higher OpenCL score, sits at the 19th percentile with an average benchmark score of 2,953, dragged down by its performance across a broader suite of older DirectX and compute tests. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M (2,967, 0.5% ahead) and the NVIDIA Quadro P600 (2,923, 1% behind).

The apparent contradiction—a card that wins the head-to-head OpenCL test by 68.3% yet has a lower average score—reflects the different benchmark compositions. The GTX 750 Ti's average includes results from tests like Passmark DirectX 9 (score 60), Passmark G3D (3,903), and Geekbench Vulkan (10,065), while the Quadro 2000M only has the single Geekbench OpenCL result. When looking strictly at the head-to-head data, the GTX 750 Ti is the clear winner, but the percentile rankings show both cards operating in a similar tier of overall GPU performance relative to the entire database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA design philosophy. The Quadro 2000M is built on the GF106 chip using the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 750 Ti uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture, also from TSMC but on a more advanced 28 nm node. This process shrink allows the GTX 750 Ti to pack 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 2000M, by contrast, contains 1,170 million transistors on a larger 238 mm² die, yielding a density of just 4.9 million per square millimeter.

The Maxwell architecture brings a substantial increase in shader resources. The GTX 750 Ti features 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This more than tripling of shader count explains the massive OpenCL performance gap, as compute workloads scale heavily with shading unit throughput. The GTX 750 Ti also operates at a base clock of 1020 MHz with a boost clock of 1085 MHz, whereas the Quadro 2000M's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data.

Memory architecture follows a similar generational split. Both cards use a 128-bit memory bus and 2 GB of VRAM, but the GTX 750 Ti employs GDDR5 memory running at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s. The Quadro 2000M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), producing only 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth—exactly one-third of the GTX 750 Ti's figure. This threefold bandwidth advantage is critical for texture-heavy and compute-heavy workloads.

The GTX 750 Ti also supports the Vulkan API (version 1.4), while the Quadro 2000M lists no Vulkan support. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 750 Ti's newer architecture also enables higher pixel and texture fill rates: 17.36 GPixel/s and 43.40 GTexel/s, versus the Quadro 2000M's 4.400 GPixel/s and 17.60 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance (FP32) tells a similar story: 1,388.8 GFLOPS for the GTX 750 Ti against 422.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000M.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 750 Ti wins in every measurable compute and rendering category from the data. Its OpenCL score of 10,827 dwarfs the Quadro 2000M's 3,434, a 68.3% advantage. The GTX 750 Ti also holds a massive lead in memory bandwidth (86.40 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s), pixel rate (17.36 vs 4.400 GPixel/s), texture rate (43.40 vs 17.60 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (1,388.8 vs 422.4 GFLOPS). For any workload that stresses shader compute, memory throughput, or fill rates—such as modern game rendering, GPGPU compute, or high-resolution texture streaming—the GTX 750 Ti is the clear choice.

The Quadro 2000M's advantages are more circumstantial. It is a mobile workstation part (MXM Module form factor) with a lower TDP of 55 W versus the GTX 750 Ti's 60 W. Its power connectors are listed as "None," and it uses a portable-device-dependent display output, making it suitable for laptop or compact embedded systems. The GTX 750 Ti, while also not requiring external power connectors, is a single-slot desktop card with a 145 mm (5.7 inches) length and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro 2000M also has a slightly higher percentile ranking (21st vs 19th), though this is an artifact of its limited benchmark count.

In terms of production status, both are end-of-life products. The Quadro 2000M's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The GTX 750 Ti follows the GeForce 600 series and precedes the GeForce 900 series. The Quadro 2000M was released in January 2011, while the GTX 750 Ti came in February 2014.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GF106 (Quadro 2000M) vs GM107 (GTX 750 Ti)
• Architecture: Fermi vs Maxwell
• Generation: Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) vs GeForce 700
• Process node: 40 nm vs 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,170 million vs 1,870 million
• Die size: 238 mm² vs 148 mm²
• Transistor density: 4.9M / mm² vs 12.6M / mm²
• Base clock: Not listed vs 1020 MHz
• Boost clock: Not listed vs 1085 MHz
• Memory clock: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) vs 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective)
• Memory type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs 86.40 GB/s
• Shading units: 192 vs 640
• TMUs: 32 vs 40
• Pixel rate: 4.400 GPixel/s vs 17.36 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 17.60 GTexel/s vs 43.40 GTexel/s
• FP32: 422.4 GFLOPS vs 1,388.8 GFLOPS
• TDP: 55 W vs 60 W
• Slot width: MXM Module vs Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: Not listed vs 250 W
• Bus interface: MXM-A (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a
• Vulkan support: Not listed vs 1.4
• Dimensions: Not listed vs 145 mm (5.7 inches) length
• Release date: 2011-01-12 vs 2014-02-17
• Predecessor: Quadro FX Mobile vs GeForce 600
• Successor: Quadro Kepler-M vs GeForce 900
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 149 USD

Identical specifications include the 2 GB memory size, 128-bit bus width, 16 ROPs, DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support, no power connectors required, and end-of-life production status.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 750 Ti wins decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 10,827 versus 3,434 for the Quadro 2000M, a 68.3% margin. Its FP32 throughput of 1,388.8 GFLOPS is more than three times the Quadro's 422.4 GFLOPS.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: Both use a 128-bit bus and 2 GB of VRAM, but the GTX 750 Ti uses GDDR5 at 5.4 Gbps effective, achieving 86.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 2000M uses DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective, yielding only 28.80 GB/s—one-third the bandwidth.

Q: Are these cards suitable for the same types of systems?

A: No. The Quadro 2000M is an MXM Module with portable-device-dependent outputs, designed for laptops or embedded systems. The GTX 750 Ti is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 desktop card measuring 145 mm, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card supports more modern APIs?

A: The GTX 750 Ti supports Vulkan 1.4 in addition to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro 2000M lists only DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support.

Q: How do their overall benchmark percentiles compare?

A: The Quadro 2000M sits at the 21st percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the GTX 750 Ti's 19th percentile. However, the Quadro has only one benchmark result, while the GTX 750 Ti's average incorporates 11 tests including multiple DirectX versions and Vulkan.

Q: What is the wattage difference?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the GTX 750 Ti is rated at 60 W—a difference of only 5 W despite the GTX 750 Ti's substantially higher performance.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy: the GTX 750 Ti is categorically faster than the Quadro 2000M in every benchmark and compute metric recorded. Its OpenCL score is 68.3% higher, its memory bandwidth is three times greater, and its shading unit count (640 vs 192) gives it a structural advantage in parallel workloads. For any user prioritizing gaming, GPGPU compute, or general graphics performance, the GTX 750 Ti is the only rational choice from these two.

The Quadro 2000M's case rests entirely on its form factor and power profile. As an MXM Module with 55 W TDP and no external power connector, it fits into mobile workstations where the GTX 750 Ti's PCIe desktop card cannot go. Its portable-device-dependent display output and MXM-A (3.0) bus interface target a niche of laptop or compact embedded designs. For that use case, the Quadro 2000M's lower transistor count (1,170 million) and older Fermi architecture are acceptable trade-offs for mobility.

The GTX 750 Ti's launch MSRP was 149 USD, and its successor is the GeForce 900 series. The Quadro 2000M, released in 2011, is three years older and belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M lineage. Both are end-of-life products. Buyers should note that the GTX 750 Ti's average benchmark score (2,953) is actually lower than the Quadro 2000M's (3,434), but this is misleading: the GTX 750 Ti's average includes demanding tests like Passmark DirectX 9 (60) and Passmark G2D (528), which pull its average down despite its superior peak compute.

In practical terms, the GTX 750 Ti wins on architecture (Maxwell vs Fermi), memory (GDDR5 vs DDR3), shader count (640 vs 192), and every fill rate and throughput figure. The Quadro 2000M wins only on portability and a marginal 5 W TDP advantage. Unless the MXM form factor is a hard requirement, the GTX 750 Ti is the superior part in all measurable performance dimensions.