GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M are both mobile Maxwell parts built on the same GM107 chip, yet they are positioned for entirely different workloads. The benchmark data reveals a 2.1% delta in OpenCL performance, with the GeForce taking the win, but the specifications tell a more complex story about bandwidth, memory capacity, and power efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273 against the Quadro M2000M’s 10,057. That is a 2.1% advantage for the GTX 950A, a narrow margin that falls well within typical run-to-run variance. The data shows a single win for the GeForce and zero for the Quadro, but the practical difference here is negligible.

Looking at the broader field, the GTX 950A sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M2000M sits at the 47th. Their nearest rivals illustrate just how close these two are. The GTX 950A trails the AMD Radeon RX 6500M by 0.9%, edges out the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 by 1.2%, beats the AMD Radeon R9 M375 by 2%, and falls 2% short of the AMD Radeon RX 550X. The Quadro M2000M, meanwhile, is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (-0.1%), the AMD FirePro W5000 (+0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (+0.5%), and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (+1.1%).

These deltas are all within a 3% band, meaning neither GPU has a meaningful compute advantage in OpenCL workloads. The GeForce’s 2.1% win over the Quadro is smaller than the gap between the Quadro and its own closest rival. The data suggests that raw compute throughput is not the differentiator between these two parts.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same GM107 chip using TSMC’s 28 nm process, with identical transistor counts of 1,870 million and a die size of 148 mm². The transistor density is the same at 12.6M / mm². They share the same Maxwell architecture, the same 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The differences emerge in clock speeds and memory configuration. The Quadro M2000M runs a base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz, while the GTX 950A sits lower at 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. This gives the Quadro a slight edge in pixel rate, 18.19 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, and texture rate, 45.48 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is similarly close: 1,455.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the GeForce.

Memory is where the gap widens significantly. The GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 32.03 GB/s of bandwidth at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The Quadro M2000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 80.19 GB/s. That is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro, which should matter heavily in memory-bound workloads despite the near-identical compute throughput.

Power draw also differs: the Quadro is rated at 55 W, while the GTX 950A is rated at 75 W. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors, but the Quadro uses the MXM-A (3.0) interface while the GeForce uses MXM-B (3.0). The Quadro also benefits from a later release date, December 2015 versus March 2015, and has a defined successor in the Quadro Pascal-M, while the GTX 950A’s successor is not listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: pick the Quadro M2000M for memory-intensive tasks and the GeForce GTX 950A only if the 2.1% OpenCL lead matters more than everything else. The Quadro offers 2 GB more memory, 2.5x the bandwidth, higher clocks, and lower power consumption. The GeForce counters with a slightly higher average benchmark score and a better percentile rank, but the margins are too thin to matter in practice.

The Quadro’s 80.19 GB/s bandwidth versus 32.03 GB/s is the single largest specification gap between these two. For any workload that streams data, large textures, compute kernels with high memory traffic, or multi-app professional use, the Quadro should pull ahead despite its lower raw compute score. The GeForce’s 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS is a 1.2% difference in the Quadro’s favor, not the GeForce’s, meaning the GeForce’s benchmark win comes from elsewhere, likely driver optimizations or thermal behavior.

The 75 W TDP of the GeForce versus 55 W for the Quadro also favors the Quadro in thin-and-light mobile workstations. Both are end-of-life products, but the Quadro has a named successor, suggesting a longer professional support lifecycle. The GeForce has no successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 2.1% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M’s 10,057.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Quadro M2000M delivers 80.19 GB/s using 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the GTX 950A delivers 32.03 GB/s using 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus. That is a 2.5x advantage for the Quadro.

Q: Are both GPUs built on the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. They also share 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The Quadro M2000M runs at 1098 MHz base and 1137 MHz boost, while the GTX 950A runs at 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. The Quadro is higher in both metrics.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The Quadro M2000M is rated at 55 W, which is 20 W lower than the GTX 950A’s 75 W rating.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with no differences in API feature levels.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 950A wins in raw OpenCL compute score, with 10,273 versus 10,057, and holds a slightly better percentile rank at 48 versus 47. It also has a lower base clock, which paradoxically means it delivers its performance at a higher TDP of 75 W, suggesting it may sustain boost clocks differently under load.

The Quadro M2000M wins decisively in memory capacity and bandwidth, offering 4 GB versus 2 GB and 80.19 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s. It also wins on power efficiency, drawing 55 W versus 75 W, and on clock speeds, with higher base and boost frequencies. The Quadro’s pixel rate of 18.19 GPixel/s and texture rate of 45.48 GTexel/s both exceed the GeForce’s 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s.

For professional applications that rely on large datasets or high-resolution textures, the Quadro’s memory subsystem should dominate. For compute benchmarks that are not memory-bound, the GeForce’s slight edge in OpenCL suggests it may have better driver optimizations for general-purpose workloads. The Quadro also has a defined successor, indicating a more structured upgrade path.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M |

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

| Generation | GeForce 900A | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) |

| Base Clock | 993 MHz | 1098 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1137 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.03 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 18.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 45.48 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 1,455.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 55 W |

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

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2015-12-02 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800A | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | None | Quadro Pascal-M |