GPU Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 in adjacent performance percentiles, with the Quadro at the 47th percentile and the GTX 760 at the 46th percentile. Despite this close overall ranking, their benchmark scores reveal distinct performance profiles, with the GeForce GTX 760 holding a clear lead in the two shared tests. The following analysis breaks down these results, examines where each card excels, and outlines the architectural and specification differences that define their respective positions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison consists of two benchmark tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both cases, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 is the decisive winner, leaving the Quadro M2000M trailing by significant margins.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 760 scores 11,299 points against the Quadro M2000M’s 10,057 points. This represents an 11% advantage for the GeForce card, a substantial gap that reflects the raw compute throughput difference between the two architectures. The Quadro M2000M’s FP32 performance is listed at 1,455.4 GFLOPS, while the GTX 760 delivers 2.378 TFLOPS, a difference that directly translates to the OpenCL result.

The gap widens considerably in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the GTX 760 scores 12,551 points, while the Quadro M2000M manages only 9,606 points. This 23.5% deficit for the Quadro is particularly notable, as it suggests the Kepler architecture in the GTX 760 handles the Vulkan API workload far more efficiently than the Maxwell-based Quadro. The Vulkan API version support differs between the two as well, with the Quadro supporting Vulkan 1.4 and the GTX 760 supporting Vulkan 1.2.175.

When comparing these results to their respective nearest rivals, the performance context becomes clearer. The Quadro M2000M’s average benchmark score of 9,832 places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, which averages 9,846. It sits 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803) and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780). The GTX 760, with an average score of 9,458, trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK by 0.2% (9,474) but leads the AMD Radeon R7 M380 by 1.6% (9,313) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M by 1.7% (9,302).

The head-to-head results show a consistent pattern: the GTX 760 outperforms the Quadro M2000M in both available tests, with a particularly strong showing in Vulkan. The Quadro’s zero wins against two losses in this comparison underscores the performance gap, even though both cards occupy similar percentiles overall.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 760 is the clear winner in both shared benchmark tests, making it the superior choice for compute-heavy workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan. Its 23.5% advantage in Vulkan is especially pronounced, suggesting that applications optimized for this API will run noticeably better on the GTX 760. The card’s higher FP32 throughput of 2.378 TFLOPS, compared to the Quadro’s 1,455.4 GFLOPS, supports this benchmark dominance.

The GTX 760 also benefits from a higher memory bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s, which is more than double the Quadro M2000M’s 80.19 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage likely contributes to its superior benchmark scores, particularly in memory-intensive workloads. The GTX 760’s larger memory bus width of 256 bits, versus the Quadro’s 128-bit bus, further reinforces this advantage.

The Quadro M2000M, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has its own strengths. It offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the GTX 760’s 2 GB, which could prove beneficial in applications that require larger frame buffers or working sets. Its lower power consumption of 55 W, compared to the GTX 760’s 170 W, makes it a more efficient option for thermally constrained environments. The Quadro also supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API version than the GTX 760’s Vulkan 1.2.175, which may matter for future software compatibility.

In terms of their benchmark percentiles, the Quadro M2000M ranks slightly higher at the 47th percentile versus the GTX 760’s 46th percentile. This is a marginal difference, but it suggests that across the full range of GPU workloads, the Quadro holds its own despite losing the specific head-to-head tests. The Quadro’s nearest rival comparisons show it within 0.5% of the GeForce GTX 1070, while the GTX 760 sits 1.8% ahead of the GeForce GTX 465.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 is the stronger performer in the two shared tests. Its 11% lead in OpenCL and 23.5% lead in Vulkan make it the obvious choice for users prioritizing raw compute performance in these APIs. The card’s higher FP32 throughput, doubled memory bandwidth, and larger texture and pixel rates all align with its benchmark superiority.

The Quadro M2000M, however, should not be dismissed. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double that of the GTX 760, and its 55 W power draw is less than a third of the GTX 760’s 170 W requirement. For users who need more memory or operate in power-sensitive environments, the Quadro offers tangible benefits that do not appear in the benchmark scores. Its support for Vulkan 1.4, a newer API version, also provides a degree of forward compatibility that the GTX 760 lacks.

Users who prioritize compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads should select the GeForce GTX 760, as the data shows it holds a consistent advantage in both tests. The GTX 760’s average benchmark score of 9,458 versus the Quadro’s 9,832 is the exception, with the Quadro holding a slight overall edge, but the head-to-head results favor the GTX 760 decisively.

Users who require larger memory capacity or lower power consumption should consider the Quadro M2000M, provided their workloads are not heavily dependent on the two benchmark tests where it trails. The Quadro’s 4 GB memory and 55 W power envelope are clear differentiators, and its slightly higher percentile ranking suggests broader competence across varied workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 scores 11,299 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10,057, giving the GTX 760 an 11% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 760 in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The GTX 760 scores 12,551 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to the Quadro M2000M’s 9,606, resulting in a 23.5% lead for the GTX 760.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, making the Quadro’s capacity double that of the GTX 760.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W and uses no power connectors, while the GTX 760 has a TDP of 170 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, giving the Quadro a newer API version.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, while the GTX 760 has an average score of 9,458, with the Quadro ranking at the 47th percentile and the GTX 760 at the 46th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different NVIDIA architectures, with the Quadro M2000M using Maxwell and the GTX 760 using Kepler. This architectural divide explains many of the performance differences observed in the benchmarks. The Quadro M2000M’s chip, the GM107, is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, containing 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The GTX 760’s GK104 chip is also fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC but packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die.

The transistor density is similar between the two, with the Quadro at 12.6M transistors per mm² and the GTX 760 at 12.0M per mm². However, the GTX 760’s larger die size and nearly double the transistor count provide it with significantly more computational resources. The GTX 760 features 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Memory architecture also differs substantially. The Quadro M2000M uses a 128-bit memory bus with a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s, while the GTX 760 uses a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. Both use GDDR5 memory, but the GTX 760’s memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro’s 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The pixel rate and texture rate reflect these differences: the GTX 760 achieves 24.77 GPixel/s and 99.07 GTexel/s, while the Quadro reaches 18.19 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but their Vulkan support differs, with the Quadro supporting version 1.4 and the GTX 760 supporting version 1.2.175. Neither GPU includes ray tracing or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences between the two GPUs beyond raw performance. The Quadro M2000M has a base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz, while the GTX 760 has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1032 MHz. The Quadro actually runs at higher clocks, but its fewer shading units and narrower memory bus limit its overall throughput.

The GTX 760 is a dual-slot card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length, while the Quadro M2000M uses an MXM module form factor. The GTX 760 requires a 450 W suggested power supply and uses two 6-pin power connectors, whereas the Quadro M2000M uses no power connectors and consumes only 55 W. The GTX 760 offers display outputs of 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro M2000M’s display outputs are described as portable device dependent.

The bus interface also differs: the Quadro M2000M uses MXM-A (3.0), while the GTX 760 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Their release dates are separated by over two years, with the GTX 760 launching on June 24, 2013, and the Quadro M2000M on December 2, 2015. The GTX 760 has a launch MSRP of 249 USD. Both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro M2000M’s predecessor being the Quadro Kepler-M and successor the Quadro Pascal-M, while the GTX 760’s predecessor is the GeForce 600 series and successor the GeForce 900 series.