NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is not close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 10,461 points against the Quadro 2000's 3,898 points. That works out to a 62.7% advantage for the GTX 860M, a decisive margin that places the two products in entirely different performance tiers for compute workloads.

The Quadro 2000's score of 3,898 places it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs tracked by the database. Its nearest rivals in the aggregate rankings are tightly clustered around it: the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 3,883 (0.4% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3,919 (0.5% ahead), the Quadro 2000D scores 3,930 (0.8% ahead), and the GeForce GT 745M scores 3,953 (1.4% ahead). This is a dense pack of low-end parts, and the Quadro 2000 sits squarely in the middle of it. The data shows a card that is competitive with its direct contemporaries but has no headroom over them.

The GTX 860M, by contrast, has an aggregate benchmark score of 2,967, which lands it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs. This aggregate figure is dragged down by its Passmark results, which are weak across the board: DirectX 9 at 55, DirectX 10 at 15, DirectX 11 at 23, DirectX 12 at 13, G2D at 226, and G3D at 3,081. Its compute score in Passmark is 1,251. But the Geekbench results tell a different story. Beyond the OpenCL score of 10,461, the card posts 4,900 in Geekbench Metal and 9,648 in Geekbench Vulkan. The OpenCL result alone is more than two and a half times the Quadro 2000's entire benchmark output. In the aggregate rankings, the GTX 860M's nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 750 Ti at 2,953 (0.5% behind), the GeForce 820A at 2,983 (0.5% ahead), the Quadro P600 at 2,923 (1.5% behind), and the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB at 2,913 (1.9% behind). The presence of a modern card like the RTX 4060 Ti in that list is largely an artifact of averaging across many different test suites, but it does illustrate how the GTX 860M's aggregate score is depressed by its weak DirectX and G2D numbers.

The head-to-head result is unambiguous. In the one benchmark where both cards appear, the GTX 860M wins by a 62.7% margin. The Quadro 2000 has no benchmark wins in the database; the GTX 860M has one. That is the entire competitive picture in quantitative terms, and it is heavily lopsided.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and different manufacturing generations. The Quadro 2000 is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF106 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million transistors per mm². The GTX 860M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, for a density of 12.0 million transistors per mm². The GTX 860M has three times the transistor count of the Quadro 2000 in only a modestly larger die, a direct consequence of the denser process node.

Compute resources differ dramatically. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 860M has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is six times the shading units and three times the texture units, with the same ROP count. The pixel rate for the Quadro 2000 is 5.000 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s. The GTX 860M produces 21.96 GPixel/s and 87.84 GTexel/s. Floating point throughput follows the same pattern: the Quadro 2000 delivers 480.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GTX 860M delivers 2.108 TFLOPS, more than four times as much.

Memory configurations also differ. The Quadro 2000 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. The GTX 860M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but its memory runs at 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly double the Quadro's figure. Both cards use GDDR5 and the same bus width, so the bandwidth advantage comes entirely from the higher clock speed.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Quadro 2000 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, only its memory clock. The GTX 860M has a base clock of 797 MHz and a boost clock of 915 MHz. Power consumption is close: the Quadro 2000 is rated at 62 W TDP, the GTX 860M at 75 W. The Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 860M is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed, since it is designed for portable devices.

API support is nearly identical on the DirectX and OpenGL fronts. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 860M adds Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan entry in the database, and both lack any RT cores or tensor cores. The GTX 860M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" while the Quadro 2000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The bus interface also differs, with PCIe 2.0 x16 on the Quadro 2000 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the GTX 860M. The Quadro 2000 card measures 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the GTX 860M has no physical dimensions listed.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 860M wins in every computational category measured. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 62.7%. Its texture rate is more than four times higher, its FP32 output is more than four times higher, and its memory bandwidth is nearly double. For any workload that stresses shading units, texture fetch, or raw memory throughput, the GTX 860M is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The GTX 860M also offers broader API coverage. It supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which the Quadro 2000 does not list. On the Geekbench side, the GTX 860M has Metal and Vulkan results (4,900 and 9,648 respectively, indicating strong performance in those specific environments. The card's weakness lies in legacy DirectX tests and G2D performance, where its Passmark scores are low: 55 in DirectX 9, 15 in DirectX 10, 23 in DirectX 11, 13 in DirectX 12, and 226 in G2D. These figures drag down its aggregate ranking to the 19th percentile despite the strong Geekbench results.

The Quadro 2000's position is weaker. Its only benchmark is the OpenCL score of 3,898, and its closest rivals are all within 1.4% of that figure. It has no wins in the head-to-head comparison, and its 23rd percentile ranking is actually higher than the GTX 860M's 19th percentile, but that is a consequence of the GTX 860M's inconsistent benchmark profile rather than any Quadro advantage. The Quadro's advantage, if any, would be in the professional display setup: it has fixed display outputs rather than portable-device-dependent ones, and its lower power draw of 62 W with a 250 W suggested PSU requirement is modestly lower than the GTX 860M's 75 W. The Quadro 2000 also has known physical dimensions, making it a drop-in single-slot card, whereas the GTX 860M is an IGP with no standalone board.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 10,461, which is 62.7% higher than the Quadro 2000's 3,898.

Q: How do the two cards compare in transistor count?

A: The GTX 860M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Quadro 2000 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The GTX 860M has roughly three times the transistor count.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both are listed with DirectX 12 (11_0) support. Both also support OpenGL 4.6, but only the GTX 860M lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 860M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly double the Quadro 2000's 41.60 GB/s. Both use GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 860M's memory clock is 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) on the Quadro.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 860M has 1,152 shading units, compared to 192 on the Quadro 2000. The GTX 860M also has 96 TMUs versus 32, while both have 16 ROPs.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Quadro 2000?

A: The Quadro 2000 had a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The GTX 860M has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for anyone choosing between these two for compute-heavy or graphics-heavy tasks. The GTX 860M outperforms the Quadro 2000 in every direct benchmark comparison, with a 62.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, more than four times the FP32 throughput (2.108 TFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS), nearly double the memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s), and a dramatically higher texture rate (87.84 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s). It also has six times the shading units and triple the TMUs. For any workload that scales with these resources, the GTX 860M is the stronger part.

The Quadro 2000's case rests on its professional positioning, but the database shows no benchmark where it wins. Its aggregate score of 3,898 places it in the 23rd percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within 1.4%, meaning it is a typical low-end Fermi card of its era. Its advantages are physical and practical: a single-slot form factor with known dimensions, fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, lower power draw at 62 W, no power connectors required, and a 250 W suggested PSU. These traits matter in a professional workstation context, but none of these advantages translate into higher benchmark scores.

The GTX 875M, on the other hand, has no such physical identity: it is an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs and no dimensions. But its performance profile is far stronger in raw compute and graphics throughput. Its aggregate 19th percentile ranking is below the Quadro's 23rd, but that ranking is an average that includes very weak Passmark DirectX scores (as low as 13 in DirectX 12 and 15 in DirectX 10) and G2D results (226). Those legacy benchmarks do not reflect the card's compute capabilities. The Geekbench Metal score of 4,900 and Vulkan score of 9,648 reinforce the overall picture: the GTX 860M is the better GPU in almost every measurable way.

Who should pick which? A user constrained to a single-slot workstation card with fixed display outputs and low power consumption might choose the Quadro 2000, but only if the workload fits within its modest 480.0 GFLOPS and 41.60 GB/s bandwidth envelope. Anyone needing compute throughput, modern API support, or simply the higher OpenCL score should choose the GTX 860M. The recorded data does not offer a single metric where the Quadro 2000 leads. The verdict, strictly from the numbers, is that the GTX 860M is the superior product in performance, and the Quadro 2000 is only distinguishable by its form factor and professional feature set, not by any measured advantage in the database.