NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between the two cards, with the GeForce GTX 950 taking both recorded head-to-head wins. The Quadro M2000 does not win in any of the head-to-head tests. For OpenCL workloads, the GTX 950 scores 15662 against the Quadro’s 14588, a 6.9% advantage. For Vulkan workloads, the gap widens considerably: the GTX 950 hits 16734 versus the Quadro’s 14475, a 13.5% margin. The pattern suggests the GTX 950 is the stronger choice for users running general compute or graphics APIs, while the Quadro’s results are still competitive but consistently behind in these specific tests.

Looking at broader database averages, the Quadro M2000 records an average benchmark score of 14532, while the GTX 950 sits at 13189. That average includes a Metal score for the GTX 950 of 7172, which the Quadro does not have recorded. The GTX 950’s overall percentile rank is 53, while the Quadro reaches 56. The Quadro’s average is boosted by its OpenCL and Vulkan scores, both near 14500, whereas the GTX 950’s average is dragged down by its Metal result. In the database’s nearest rival comparisons, the Quadro M2000 is 0.9% ahead of the GTX 965M, 1% ahead of the RX Vega 11, and 1.1% ahead of the GTX TITAN, while being 1.1% behind the RX 5500 XT. The GTX 950 is 0.8% behind the GTX 480, 0.9% ahead of the Tesla M2090, 1% behind the Radeon Pro 555X, and 1.2% behind the FirePro M6100.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same underlying chip, the GM206, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The process node is identical at 28 nm, and both are manufactured by TSMC. Transistor counts match exactly at 2,940 million, and the die size is the same at 228 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.9 million transistors per square millimeter for both. The shading unit count is identical at 768, as are the texture mapping units at 48 and the render output units at 32. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

The differences begin with clock speeds. The Quadro M2000 runs at a base clock of 796 MHz and a boost clock of 1163 MHz. The GTX 950 runs at a base clock of 1024 MHz and a boost clock of 1188 MHz. The GTX 950 is therefore clocked higher in both base and boost states. Memory clocks are the same: both use 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective. Memory size differs, with the Quadro carrying 4 GB of GDDR5 and the GTX 950 carrying 2 GB of GDDR5. The bus width is the same at 128 bit, and bandwidth is identical at 105.8 GB/s. The GTX 950’s higher clocks push its pixel rate to 38.02 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 37.22 GPixel/s, and its texture rate to 57.02 GTexel/s versus the Quadro’s 55.82 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is also higher on the GTX 950 at 1.825 TFLOPS versus the Quadro’s 1.786 TFLOPS. Neither card has a recorded FP16 value.

Power and physical design differ meaningfully. The Quadro M2000 has a TDP of 75 W, is a single-slot card, and requires no power connectors. The GTX 950 has a TDP of 90 W, is dual-slot, and requires one 6-pin power connector. Both list a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro’s dimensions are 201 mm (7.9 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The GTX 950 is 202 mm (8 inches) in length, with no height recorded. Display outputs differ: the Quadro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 950 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro is from the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation, while the GTX 950 is from the GeForce 900 generation. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Kepler, and its successor is Quadro Pascal. The GTX 950’s predecessor is GeForce 700, and its successor is GeForce 10. Both are end-of-life products. The GTX 950 has a recorded launch MSRP of 159 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 950 has 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus and have the same bandwidth of 105.8 GB/s.

Q: Is the GTX 950 faster in all recorded benchmarks?

A: Yes. In the head-to-head tests, the GTX 950 wins both: OpenCL (15662 versus 14588) and Vulkan (16734 versus 14475). The Quadro does not win in any head-to-head test.

Q: Are the two cards based on the same chip?

A: Yes. Both use the GM206 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, with the same 2,940 million transistors, the same 228 mm² die size, and the same 28 nm process node from TSMC.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro M2000 has a 75 W TDP, is single-slot, and needs no power connectors. The GTX 950 has a 90 W TDP, is dual-slot, and requires one 6-pin power connector. Both have a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The GTX 950 runs at a base clock of 1024 MHz and a boost clock of 1188 MHz. The Quadro M2000 runs at a base clock of 796 MHz and a boost clock of 1163 MHz. The GTX 950 is higher in both.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro M2000 has a higher average benchmark score of 14532, compared to the GTX 950’s 13189. The GTX 950’s average includes a Metal score of 7172, which the Quadro does not have recorded.

Specification Differences

The two cards share many core specifications but differ in several key areas. Clock speeds are higher on the GTX 950: base 1024 MHz versus 796 MHz, and boost 1188 MHz versus 1163 MHz. Memory size favors the Quadro, with 4 GB versus the GTX 950’s 2 GB, though memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are identical. Pixel rate is 38.02 GPixel/s on the GTX 950 versus 37.22 GPixel/s on the Quadro. Texture rate is 57.02 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1.825 TFLOPS versus 1.786 TFLOPS. TDP is 90 W for the GTX 950 and 75 W for the Quadro. Slot width is dual-slot for the GTX 950 and single-slot for the Quadro. Power connectors are one 6-pin for the GTX 950 and none for the Quadro. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 for the GTX 950 versus 4x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro. The GTX 950 is 202 mm (8 inches) long, while the Quadro is 201 mm (7.9 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. The GTX 950 has a launch MSRP of 159 USD, while the Quadro’s MSRP is not recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show a consistent win for the GTX 950, but the margins differ by workload. In geekbench_opencl, the GTX 950 scores 15662 against the Quadro’s 14588, a 6.9% difference. That is a moderate lead, reflecting the GTX 950’s higher clock speeds and resulting compute throughput. In geekbench_vulkan, the GTX 950 extends its lead to 13.5%, scoring 16734 against 14475. The Vulkan margin is nearly double the OpenCL margin, suggesting the GTX 950’s advantage grows in API-bound workloads. The Quadro’s higher memory capacity does not translate into a win in these tests, likely because the compute workloads do not exceed 2 GB of usage. The GTX 950’s higher boost clock of 1188 MHz versus 1163 MHz, and its higher base clock of 1024 MHz versus 796 MHz, contribute to its performance edge. The Quadro’s pixel rate of 37.22 GPixel/s and texture rate of 55.82 GTexel/s are lower than the GTX 950’s 38.02 GPixel/s and 57.02 GTexel/s, aligning with the GTX 950’s wins in both tests.

Across the broader benchmark suite, the GTX 950’s average score of 13189 is lower than the Quadro’s 14532, but that average is strongly influenced by the GTX 950’s Metal score of 7172, a test absent on the Quadro. The GTX 950’s OpenCL score of 15662 and Vulkan score of 16734 are both above the Quadro’s corresponding scores. The Quadro’s percentile rank of 56 is three points higher than the GTX 950’s 53, but this is a function of the full database distribution, which includes the GTX 950’s Metal result. In nearest rival comparisons, the GTX 950 is 0.8% behind the GTX 480 and 1% behind the Radeon Pro 555X, while the Quadro is 1.1% behind the RX 5500 XT and 1.1% ahead of the GTX TITAN. These rival positions place both cards in a similar tier of performance, with the GTX 950 trading blows with older high-end cards and the Quadro sitting just below the RX 5500 XT.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the GTX 950 is the faster card in the two tests that directly compare them. Its OpenCL lead of 6.9% and Vulkan lead of 13.5% are clear, and its higher clocks across base and boost states support that result. Anyone choosing purely on compute performance in these APIs should pick the GTX 950. The Quadro M2000, however, offers 4 GB of memory versus the GTX 950’s 2 GB, which matters for workloads that exceed the smaller frame buffer, even if the recorded benchmarks do not reflect that scenario. The Quadro also draws less power at 75 W versus 90 W, requires no power connector, and fits in a single slot, making it the more flexible card for constrained chassis or low-power builds. The GTX 950’s 90 W TDP and 6-pin connector are modest, but they are still higher requirements than the Quadro’s. The GTX 950 carries a launch MSRP of 159 USD, while the Quadro’s MSRP is not recorded. The database averages favor the Quadro at 14532 versus 13189, but that is skewed by the GTX 950’s Metal score. For Vulkan and OpenCL specifically, the GTX 950 is the clear winner. For memory capacity, power draw, and slot flexibility, the Quadro wins. The decision rests on whether the workload needs more than 2 GB of VRAM or a lower power footprint, or whether raw performance in the two recorded APIs takes priority.