NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11998 against the Quadro M2000M's 10057, a 19.3% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The GTX 960A has an average benchmark score of 11998, while the Quadro M2000M averages 9832 across its two recorded tests (OpenCL 10057 and Vulkan 9606).

Q: How do these GPUs rank relative to all GPUs in the database?

A: The GTX 960A sits in the 51st percentile, while the Quadro M2000M sits in the 47th percentile.

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

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

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards have?

A: The GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus and identical 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The GTX 960A has a TDP of 75 W, while the Quadro M2000M has a lower TDP of 55 W.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental architecture: the GM107 chip using NVIDIA's Maxwell design, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. The transistor count is identical at 1,870 million, and the die size is the same at 148 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M per mm² for both. The shading unit count is also equal at 640, with 40 texture mapping units and 16 raster operations units on each.

The clock speeds differ slightly. The GTX 960A has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz, while the Quadro M2000M has a base clock of 1098 MHz and a lower boost clock of 1137 MHz. This 39 MHz boost clock advantage for the GTX 960A contributes to its higher peak performance.

Memory clocks are identical at 1253 MHz, translating to 5 Gbps effective for both. The memory interface is the same 128-bit bus width, and bandwidth is exactly equal at 80.19 GB/s. The key memory difference is capacity: the GTX 960A carries 2 GB, while the Quadro M2000M doubles that to 4 GB.

The pixel rate and texture rate reflect the clock differences. The GTX 960A achieves 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s, whereas the Quadro M2000M delivers 18.19 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern: the GTX 960A produces 1.505 TFLOPS, and the Quadro M2000M produces 1,455.4 GFLOPS.

Both support the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both use MXM modules, though the bus interface differs: the GTX 960A uses MXM-B (3.0), and the Quadro M2000M uses MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs are portable-device dependent for both, and neither requires power connectors.

The release dates are about nine months apart: the GTX 960A launched in March 2015, and the Quadro M2000M in December 2015. The GTX 960A has no listed successor, while the Quadro M2000M lists the Quadro Pascal-M as its successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The GTX 960A scores 11998, and the Quadro M2000M scores 10057. The GTX 960A wins by 19.3%, which is a substantial margin in compute workloads.

Interpreting this score, the GTX 960A's OpenCL result places it 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (score 11960), 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (score 11842), 2.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (score 11680), and 3.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (score 11627). That means the GTX 960A's compute output is competitive with much newer and higher-tier cards in this specific test.

The Quadro M2000M's OpenCL score of 10057, when averaged with its Vulkan result of 9606, gives an average score of 9832. This average places it 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (score 9846), 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (score 9803), 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (score 9780), and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (score 9724). The Quadro's average is therefore tightly clustered with mid-range professional and consumer cards.

The GTX 960A's single benchmark score equals its average, which means there is no variation in its recorded performance. The Quadro M2000M shows a gap between its OpenCL and Vulkan scores: the OpenCL result is 4.7% higher than the Vulkan result. This suggests the Quadro's compute performance can vary depending on the API used.

The 19.3% delta in the head-to-head OpenCL test is larger than the 4-point percentile gap in the global ranking (51st vs 47th percentile). The benchmark numbers indicate that in raw compute throughput, the GTX 960A is clearly the stronger chip, while the Quadro's higher memory capacity does not translate into a compute advantage in this test.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for raw compute performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A. It leads the only head-to-head benchmark by 19.3%, posts a higher average benchmark score (11998 vs 9832), and ranks in the 51st percentile versus the Quadro M2000M's 47th.

The GTX 960A achieves this with a higher boost clock (1176 MHz vs 1137 MHz), higher pixel rate (18.82 vs 18.19 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (47.04 vs 45.48 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (1.505 TFLOPS vs 1,455.4 GFLOPS). All of these advantages stem from the clock speed differences, since the core configurations are identical.

The Quadro M2000M's main advantage is memory capacity: 4 GB versus 2 GB. This could matter for workloads that require larger working sets, but the recorded benchmarks do not show any test where this capacity translates into a win. The Quadro also draws less power at 55 W versus 75 W, which is relevant for thermal-constrained laptop designs.

For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the GTX 960A is the stronger choice based on the recorded data. For those needing twice the memory capacity or lower power consumption, the Quadro M2000M offers those specific attributes, but it trails in every measured performance metric.

The production status for both is end-of-life, and neither has a launch MSRP listed in the database. The GTX 960A's predecessor is the GeForce 800A, while the Quadro M2000M's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M.

Specification Differences

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

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

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

| Base Clock | 1097 MHz | 1098 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | 1137 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Pixel Rate | 18.82 GPixel/s | 18.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 47.04 GTexel/s | 45.48 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.505 TFLOPS | 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 listed | Quadro Pascal-M |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 11998 | 9832 |

| Percentile | 51 | 47 |

Specifications that are identical between the two include the chip (GM107), architecture (Maxwell), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistors (1,870 million), die size (148 mm²), transistor density (12.6M / mm²), memory type (GDDR5), memory clock (1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective), bus width (128 bit), bandwidth (80.19 GB/s), shading units (640), TMUs (40), ROPs (16), slot width (MXM Module), power connectors (None), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), and all three APIs (DirectX 12 11_0, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4).

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins on:

• Compute performance: 19.3% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL (11998 vs 10057)
• Boost clock: 1176 MHz vs 1137 MHz, a 39 MHz advantage
• Pixel fill rate: 18.82 GPixel/s vs 18.19 GPixel/s
• Texture fill rate: 47.04 GTexel/s vs 45.48 GTexel/s
• FP32 throughput: 1.505 TFLOPS vs 1,455.4 GFLOPS
• Global ranking: 51st percentile vs 47th percentile
• Average benchmark score: 11998 vs 9832

NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins on:

• Memory capacity: 4 GB vs 2 GB, double the frame buffer
• Power efficiency: 55 W TDP vs 75 W TDP, a 20 W lower draw
• Base clock: 1098 MHz vs 1097 MHz, a marginal 1 MHz edge
• API coverage: has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score (9606), while the GTX 960A has no Vulkan result in the database

The use-case split is straightforward. For OpenCL compute tasks where raw throughput matters, the GTX 960A is the better performer. For applications that require more than 2 GB of memory, such as larger datasets or higher-resolution textures, the Quadro M2000M provides the capacity headroom. Systems with strict thermal budgets would also favor the Quadro's 55 W TDP, while the GTX 960A's higher clock speeds suit performance-sensitive scenarios where power draw is less critical.

The Quadro's additional Vulkan benchmark result offers insight into its API versatility, but without a corresponding Vulkan score for the GTX 960A, no direct comparison is possible in that test. The recorded data shows one clear head-to-head winner, and that is the GTX 960A.