NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data pits the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M across two compute workloads. The Quadro M2000M wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 10057 against 9745 for the GTX 950M, a 3.2% advantage. That is a modest lead, suggesting the two chips trade blows in raw compute tasks where memory bandwidth matters less.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is a different story. The Quadro M2000M posts 9606, while the GTX 950M manages only 6525. That is a 47.2% gap, a decisive margin that points to architectural or driver-level advantages in the Vulkan path. The GTX 950M loses nearly a third of its OpenCL performance when moving to Vulkan, while the Quadro holds much steadier. The data implies the Quadro's compute pipeline is better optimized for modern API workloads.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Quadro M2000M sits at 9832, while the GTX 950M averages 8135. That 20.8% overall gap is driven almost entirely by the Vulkan result. In the database's percentile ranking, the Quadro lands at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 950M sits at the 42nd. Both are mid-pack parts, but the Quadro consistently ranks above its consumer sibling.

The nearest rivals for the Quadro M2000M include the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 9846 average, which edges the M2000M by 0.1%, and the AMD FirePro W5000 at 9803, which trails by 0.3%. The GTX 950M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M360 at 8129, just 0.1% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 at 8167, which sits 0.4% ahead. These deltas frame both cards as tightly clustered within their respective performance tiers.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M2000M wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is straightforward. Its strength lies in Vulkan compute. The 47.2% margin over the GTX 950M in that test indicates the Quadro is the better choice for applications leveraging Vulkan for general-purpose compute or rendering. The OpenCL result, while closer at 3.2%, still favors the Quadro.

The GTX 950M has no benchmark wins in the database. Even in OpenCL, where its score of 9745 is respectable, it falls short. The GTX 950M does have a higher TDP at 75 W versus 55 W for the Quadro, which suggests it may sustain clocks differently under load, but the recorded benchmark data does not show any task where that translates into a win.

Professionals running compute workloads that use Vulkan should clearly favor the Quadro M2000M. The GTX 950M, by contrast, appears geared toward scenarios where its IGP form factor and DDR3 memory are acceptable trade-offs for a lower-power integrated solution. But in pure performance terms, the data gives every win to the Quadro.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M averages 9832 across recorded tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M averages 8135.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The Quadro M2000M scores 9606 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 6525 for the GTX 950M, a 47.2% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: Do both GPUs share the same chip and architecture?

A: Yes, both use the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: What memory configurations do they have?

A: Both have 4 GB on a 128-bit bus, but the Quadro M2000M uses GDDR5 with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 950M uses DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher TDP?

A: The GTX 950M has a 75 W TDP, while the Quadro M2000M is rated at 55 W.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare?

A: The Quadro M2000M's closest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, averages 9846, just 0.1% ahead. The GTX 950M's closest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M360, averages 8129, 0.1% behind.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge most clearly in memory and clock behavior. The Quadro M2000M runs its GDDR5 memory at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed, yielding only 28.80 GB/s. That is a 2.8x bandwidth difference, which likely explains much of the Vulkan gap.

Base clocks differ: the Quadro starts at 1098 MHz and boosts to 1137 MHz, while the GTX 950M starts lower at 993 MHz and boosts to 1124 MHz. The Quadro's higher base clock gives it a 10.6% advantage at the starting point, narrowing to 1.2% at boost. Pixel rate and texture rate follow accordingly: the Quadro posts 18.19 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s, while the GTX 950M posts 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is nearly tied at 1,455.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the GTX 950M.

The Quadro M2000M uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and comes in an MXM Module slot width, while the GTX 950M uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and an IGP form factor. TDP differs as well: 55 W for the Quadro, 75 W for the GTX 950M. Both lack power connectors and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. Release dates differ, with the GTX 950M arriving earlier, and the Quadro's generation is listed as Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) versus GeForce 900M for the GTX 950M.

Architecture Differences

Both chips share the same underlying silicon: GM107 on Maxwell, fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm, with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Transistor density is identical at 12.6 million per mm². Shading units, texture mapping units, and ROPs are all the same: 640, 40, and 16 respectively. Neither chip includes RT cores or tensor cores, and both expose DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The meaningful architectural difference is memory type. The Quadro pairs its Maxwell cores with GDDR5, while the GTX 950M uses DDR3. This is not a compute-unit difference but a memory subsystem difference, and it shows up sharply in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The Vulkan benchmark, with its 47.2% delta, likely reflects this memory bottleneck on the GTX 950M side. The Quadro also uses an MXM module form factor, suggesting it was designed for workstation-class laptops where memory bandwidth matters more. The GTX 950M's IGP form factor and DDR3 point toward a broader consumer laptop segment where cost and integration take priority.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M, while the GTX 950M follows the GeForce 800M and precedes the GeForce 10 Mobile. This places both at a specific point in NVIDIA's mobile lineup, with the Quadro being a professional-grade variant of the same Maxwell generation.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M in every recorded benchmark. The overall average score of 9832 versus 8135 gives the Quadro a 20.8% lead. The Vulkan result, where the Quadro is 47.2% ahead, is the single largest differentiator and points to the GDDR5 memory as the deciding factor.

Professionals or users running Vulkan-based compute should choose the Quadro M2000M without hesitation. The 80.19 GB/s bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s is a fundamental advantage that the GTX 950M cannot overcome, regardless of clock speeds or driver tuning. The Quadro also does this at a lower 55 W TDP, making it the more efficient part in the recorded metrics.

The GTX 950M is not without a role. Its IGP form factor and PCIe 3.0 x8 interface make it a simpler drop-in for consumer laptop designs, and its OpenCL score of 9745 is competitive, trailing the Quadro by only 3.2%. For users who do not touch Vulkan and prioritize the convenience of an integrated mobile GPU, the GTX 950M remains a plausible choice. But for anyone asking which is faster, the database answers clearly: the Quadro M2000M, and by a margin that grows with API complexity.