GPU Comparison

The GeForce GTX 780M and Quadro M2000M are both end-of-life NVIDIA mobile GPUs, but the data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The GTX 780M wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, with a 27% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 32.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 11261 places it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M2000M’s 9832 average sits at the 47th percentile. For raw compute, the 780M is the pick; for power-sensitive applications, the M2000M’s 55W TDP versus 122W makes it the efficiency choice, though it gives up significant performance.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate the GeForce GTX 780M is the superior performer in every measured category. It leads the Quadro M2000M by 27% in Geekbench OpenCL (12769 vs 10057) and by 32.2% in Geekbench Vulkan (12696 vs 9606). The 780M’s average score of 11261 is 14.5% higher than the M2000M’s 9832, and it ranks at the 50th percentile versus the M2000M’s 47th. Users prioritizing compute throughput should choose the 780M without hesitation.

However, the Quadro M2000M is not without merit. Its 55W TDP is less than half the 780M’s 122W, making it a better fit for thermally constrained mobile workstations. The M2000M also carries newer architecture (Maxwell vs Kepler) and a higher transistor density (12.6M/mm² vs 12.0M/mm²). If battery life and cooling are paramount, the M2000M is the sensible option, but it costs 27-32% in benchmark performance.

The 780M’s closest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11228, 0.3% slower) and AMD FirePro W4300 (11225, 0.3% slower), showing it sits at a competitive mid-range level. The M2000M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846, 0.1% faster), indicating it is at the low end of professional mobile GPUs. Verdict: 780M for performance, M2000M for efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce GTX 780M has an average benchmark score of 11261, which is 14.5% higher than the Quadro M2000M’s 9832.

Q: What are the specific benchmark deltas between the two?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the 780M scores 12769 versus the M2000M’s 10057, a 27% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the 780M scores 12696 versus 9606, a 32.2% lead.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The GeForce GTX 780M has a TDP of 122W, while the Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55W. The M2000M consumes less than half the power.

Q: Are there architectural differences beyond compute performance?

A: Yes. The 780M uses the Kepler architecture with a GK104 chip and 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The M2000M uses Maxwell with a GM107 chip, 1,870 million transistors, and a 148 mm² die. The M2000M has a higher transistor density (12.6M/mm² vs 12.0M/mm²).

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan API support?

A: The Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GeForce GTX 780M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. However, the 780M still scores 32.2% higher in the Vulkan benchmark.

Q: What are their percentile rankings among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 780M is in the 50th percentile, while the Quadro M2000M is in the 47th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different NVIDIA architectures. The GeForce GTX 780M is built on Kepler, using the GK104 chip manufactured on a 28nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M/mm². In contrast, the Quadro M2000M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, also on TSMC’s 28nm node. The M2000M has 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 12.6M/mm².

The compute resources differ dramatically. The 780M has 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 2.4x difference in shading units and 3.2x difference in TMUs explains the 780M’s raw throughput advantage. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the M2000M has a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.175).

Memory architecture also diverges. The 780M uses a 256-bit memory bus with 4GB of GDDR5, delivering 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The M2000M has a 128-bit bus with 4GB of GDDR5, providing only 80.19 GB/s, exactly half the bandwidth. The 780M’s pixel rate is 25.50 GPixel/s versus 18.19 GPixel/s for the M2000M, and its texture rate is 102.0 GTexel/s versus 45.48 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GeForce GTX 780M | Quadro M2000M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Chip | GK104 | GM107 |

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

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 148 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | 1098 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 797 MHz | 1137 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 640 |

| TMUs | 128 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 18.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 102.0 GTexel/s | 45.48 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.448 TFLOPS | 1,455.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 122 W | 55 W |

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

| Vulkan API | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

The 780M has a wider memory bus (256-bit vs 128-bit), double the bandwidth, and substantially more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. The M2000M has higher clock speeds (1098 MHz base vs 771 MHz) and a more efficient architecture per transistor, but this does not compensate for the 780M’s larger silicon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GeForce GTX 780M scores 12769, defeating the Quadro M2000M’s 10057 by a 27% margin. This is the larger of the two wins in absolute points, a 2712-point difference. The OpenCL test typically reflects general-purpose compute, where the 780M’s 1536 shading units and 160 GB/s bandwidth provide a decisive advantage.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the 780M scores 12696 against the M2000M’s 9606, a 32.2% delta, the larger percentage win. The M2000M’s higher Vulkan API version (1.4 vs 1.2.175) does not translate into better performance; the 780M’s raw compute power overcomes any software advantage. The 3090-point gap here is the biggest single-test difference between the two.

The 780M wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record. Its average benchmark score of 11261 is 14.5% higher than the M2000M’s 9832. Notably, the 780M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 8319, which the M2000M lacks, indicating broader benchmark coverage. The 780M’s nearest rivals (AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 at 11228, AMD FirePro W4300 at 11225) are within 0.3% of its average score, while the M2000M’s nearest rival (NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 9846) is 0.1% faster.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 780M wins in every compute benchmark recorded. It is the clear choice for workloads that stress raw throughput: OpenCL compute tasks, Vulkan rendering, and any application that can leverage its 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the M2000M’s 1,455.4 GFLOPS. The 780M’s 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is double the M2000M’s 80.19 GB/s, making it superior for memory-intensive operations like large texture loads or data-parallel compute. Its 102.0 GTexel/s texture rate and 25.50 GPixel/s pixel rate are both substantially higher, favoring graphics-heavy applications.

The Quadro M2000M wins on efficiency. With a 55W TDP versus 122W, it draws less than half the power, which is critical for thin-and-light mobile workstations where thermal headroom is limited. The M2000M also has a higher base clock (1098 MHz vs 771 MHz) and boost clock (1137 MHz vs 797 MHz), so in short bursts where power is not the bottleneck, it may feel more responsive. Its newer Maxwell architecture and higher transistor density (12.6M/mm² vs 12.0M/mm²) suggest better architectural efficiency per transistor, even if the absolute performance is lower. The M2000M’s Vulkan 1.4 support is more modern, which may matter for future software compatibility, though it loses the benchmark today.

For users who need maximum performance in a laptop GPU, the 780M wins outright. For users who prioritize battery life, lower heat, and adequate performance for lighter tasks, the M2000M is the rational pick. The data does not support any scenario where the M2000M outperforms the 780M in raw compute.