NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a stark split between the two NVIDIA offerings. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 delivers a score of 18,925, which is 46.9% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M's 10,057. This is a decisive victory for the consumer card, nearly doubling the compute output of the workstation part in this particular workload. The margin is substantial enough that any application heavily reliant on OpenCL compute would show a clear preference for the GTX 960.

However, the story flips in the Vulkan graphics test. Here, the Quadro M2000M scores 9,606, edging out the GTX 960's 9,231 by a margin of 4.1%. While the absolute difference is modest—375 points—it is a consistent win for the Quadro in this API. This suggests that the Quadro's driver optimization or hardware configuration handles Vulkan's specific rendering paths with slightly better efficiency. The data shows a 1-1 split in head-to-head wins, with each card claiming a distinct benchmark category.

Looking at broader averages, the Quadro M2000M holds an average benchmark score of 9,832 across all tests, while the GTX 960 trails at 9,273. That places the Quadro 5.7% ahead on average, a figure driven largely by its strong Vulkan showing and respectable OpenCL numbers. The percentile rankings are close as well: the Quadro sits in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960 sits in the 45th. In practical terms, both cards occupy a similar performance tier, but the Quadro has a slight edge in overall balance.

The nearest rivals for each card reinforce this positioning. The Quadro M2000M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, which scores 9,846—a negligible 0.1% difference. The AMD FirePro W5000 is also nearby at 9,803, just 0.3% behind. Even the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 appears in the Quadro's rival list with a score of 9,780, only 0.5% behind. For the GTX 960, the landscape is similar: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9,294 (0.2% ahead), the GTX 850M scores 9,302 (0.3% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 is at 9,313 (0.4% ahead). The AMD Radeon Vega 8 trails at 9,221, 0.6% behind the GTX 960. These rival lists show that both cards are clustered in a tight performance band, with no single competitor holding a commanding lead.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture. The Quadro M2000M is built on the original Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip. The GTX 960, by contrast, uses the GM206 chip and is designated as Maxwell 2.0. This generational split matters because Maxwell 2.0 introduced architectural refinements that the original Maxwell lacks, particularly in geometry processing and color compression efficiency.

Both chips are manufactured on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, so the underlying fabrication technology is identical. The transistor counts, however, differ significantly. The GTX 960's GM206 packs 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, while the Quadro M2000M's GM107 contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical—12.9M per mm² for the GTX 960 versus 12.6M per mm² for the Quadro—but the GTX 960's larger die gives it substantially more hardware resources.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the GTX 960 has 60% more shading units, 60% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. These raw resource advantages translate directly into the GTX 960's higher fill rates: it achieves 37.70 GPixel/s pixel rate and 75.39 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 18.19 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s for the Quadro.

Clock speeds are relatively close. The GTX 960 runs at a base clock of 1,127 MHz with a boost of 1,178 MHz, while the Quadro M2000M operates at 1,098 MHz base and 1,137 MHz boost. The GTX 960 is about 2.6% faster at base and 3.6% faster at boost. The FP32 compute throughput tells a clearer story: the GTX 960 delivers 2.413 TFLOPS compared to the Quadro's 1,455.4 GFLOPS, a 66% advantage.

Memory configurations also differ. The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 960 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but its memory runs at 1,753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro's 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), producing 112.2 GB/s of bandwidth—40% higher. The GTX 960's memory clock advantage is substantial, though it comes at the cost of half the capacity.

API support reveals another differentiator. The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro M2000M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level on the GTX 960 means it can handle more advanced rendering techniques in games that leverage DX12_1 features.

Physical and power characteristics are quite different. The Quadro M2000M is a mobile MXM module with a 55 W TDP and no power connectors. The GTX 960 is a dual-slot desktop card with a 120 W TDP, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested power supply. The GTX 960 measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length, while the Quadro's dimensions are listed as portable device dependent. The GTX 960 has fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2), whereas the Quadro's outputs depend on the host laptop.

Release dates are close: the GTX 960 launched on January 21, 2015, and the Quadro M2000M on December 2, 2015. Both are now end-of-life products. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M; the GTX 960's predecessor is the GeForce 700 series and its successor is the GeForce 10 series.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear segmentation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is the stronger compute performer, with 46.9% higher OpenCL scores, 66% higher FP32 throughput, 40% higher memory bandwidth, and double the ROPs. For any workload that stresses raw compute, pixel fill, or texture throughput, the GTX 960 is the evident choice. Its 2 GB memory capacity, however, may be a limiting factor in memory-intensive tasks.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins in Vulkan performance by 4.1% and holds a 5.7% higher overall average benchmark score. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double that of the GTX 960, which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The Quadro's 55 W TDP is less than half the GTX 960's 120 W, making it suitable for mobile or power-constrained environments. Its MXM form factor also means it is designed for laptops rather than desktop towers.

From a pure performance-per-watt perspective, the Quadro M2000M delivers 9,832 points at 55 W, or about 179 points per watt. The GTX 960 delivers 9,273 points at 120 W, or about 77 points per watt. The Quadro is more than twice as efficient in this metric. However, the GTX 960's absolute performance in OpenCL is so much higher that efficiency matters less when maximum speed is the goal.

The GTX 960's DirectX 12_1 support and higher memory bandwidth make it better suited for gaming and real-time graphics applications. The Quadro M2000M's strengths in Vulkan and its larger memory pool, combined with its lower power draw, point toward professional visualization workloads that favor those characteristics. The data does not indicate that either card is universally superior; it shows two products optimized for different constraints.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | GM107 | GM206 |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 2,940 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 228 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1098 MHz | 1127 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1137 MHz | 1178 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps) | 1753 MHz (7 Gbps) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 112.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 40 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.19 GPixel/s | 37.70 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.48 GTexel/s | 75.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,455.4 GFLOPS | 2.413 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 120 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | N/A | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-12-02 | 2015-01-21 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 199 USD |

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, which is 5.7% higher than the GTX 960's average of 9,273.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 960 in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 960 scores 18,925 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 46.9% higher than the Quadro M2000M's score of 10,057.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000M win any benchmark against the GTX 960?

A: Yes, the Quadro M2000M wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 9,606, which is 4.1% higher than the GTX 960's 9,231.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 960 has 2 GB. The GTX 960 compensates with higher memory bandwidth at 112.2 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Q: Which card has higher power consumption?

A: The GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 W, while the Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W. The Quadro also requires no power connectors, whereas the GTX 960 needs a single 6-pin connector and a 300 W power supply.

Q: What are the DirectX feature levels of each card?

A: The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro M2000M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is the clear winner for compute-heavy tasks. Its 46.9% OpenCL advantage, 66% higher FP32 throughput, and 40% higher memory bandwidth make it the better choice for general-purpose GPU computing, physics simulations, or any workload that leverages OpenCL. The double ROP count (32 versus 16) and higher pixel rate (37.70 GPixel/s versus 18.19 GPixel/s) also favor it for rasterization-heavy graphics. Gamers or users running real-time 3D applications will find the GTX 960's raw speed and DirectX 12_1 support more capable. Its 2 GB memory is a constraint, but for most gaming scenarios at 1080p, the bandwidth advantage likely outweighs the capacity shortfall.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins in Vulkan rendering, posting a 4.1% higher score. This makes it the better option for applications that use Vulkan as their primary API. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double the GTX 960's, which is a significant advantage for workloads with large texture sets, high-resolution assets, or compute tasks that need to hold more data on the GPU. The Quadro's 55 W TDP and MXM form factor make it the only viable choice for laptop or compact mobile systems. It also delivers far better performance per watt: 179 points per watt versus 77 points per watt for the GTX 960. For professional environments where power budgets are tight or where the host system is a laptop, the Quadro M2000M's efficiency and memory capacity are decisive advantages.

In the end, the choice depends on the platform and the workload. The GTX 960 is a desktop card demanding a 300 W PSU; the Quadro M2000M is a mobile module with no external power requirement. The GTX 960 excels at raw speed; the Quadro M2000M excels at efficiency, memory capacity, and Vulkan performance. The data supports either choice depending on which of these factors matters more.