NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M compare to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 in overall benchmark score?

A: The GTX 970M has an average benchmark score of 4628, while the Quadro 2000 scores 3898. The GTX 970M outperforms the Quadro 2000 by 386% in the Geekbench OpenCL test, the only shared benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 970M sits at the 27th percentile, while the Quadro 2000 is at the 23rd percentile. This indicates the GTX 970M outperforms a slightly larger share of the overall GPU population.

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

A: The GTX 970M features 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, whereas the Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The GTX 970M's memory bandwidth is 120.3 GB/s compared to 41.60 GB/s for the Quadro 2000.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count and smaller manufacturing process?

A: The GTX 970M uses 5,200 million transistors on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000 uses 1,170 million transistors on a 40 nm process. The GTX 970M's die size is 398 mm², versus 238 mm² for the Quadro 2000.

Q: What are the DirectX support levels for each GPU?

A: The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but only the GTX 970M lists Vulkan support (version 1.4); the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan entry.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The GTX 970M delivers 49.82 GPixel/s and 83.04 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 2000 delivers 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s. The GTX 970M is roughly 10 times faster in pixel throughput and over 4 times faster in texture throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different NVIDIA architectures. The GTX 970M is built on Maxwell 2.0, utilizing the GM204 chip, while the Quadro 2000 is based on the older Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip. This generational gap is reflected in their manufacturing processes: the GTX 970M is fabricated on a 28 nm node at TSMC, whereas the Quadro 2000 uses a 40 nm process at the same foundry. Consequently, the GTX 970M packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The Quadro 2000, by contrast, contains 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, with a density of only 4.9M per mm².

The compute resources differ sharply. The GTX 970M has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro 2000 has just 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, so those fields are absent from both. The GTX 970M's floating-point performance is rated at 2.657 TFLOPS for FP32, while the Quadro 2000 manages 480.0 GFLOPS, a factor of more than five in raw compute throughput.

Memory subsystems also reflect the architectural divide. The GTX 970M uses 6 GB of GDDR5 across a 192-bit interface, with memory clocked at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 120.3 GB/s. The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. Both cards are end-of-life products, but they were released over four years apart: the Quadro 2000 launched on 2010-12-23, and the GTX 970M on 2014-10-06. The GTX 970M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, while the Quadro 2000 is part of the Quadro Fermi (x000) lineup.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only benchmark shared between the two cards in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the GTX 970M scores 18946, while the Quadro 2000 scores 3898. The delta is 386% in favor of the GTX 970M. This is a decisive margin, indicating that the GTX 970M delivers nearly five times the OpenCL compute performance of the Quadro 2000. The win count stands at 1 for the GTX 970M and 0 for the Quadro 2000, reflecting the absence of any other common tests.

Beyond the shared test, the GTX 970M has a broader benchmark portfolio. It records scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (472), Geekbench Vulkan (18292), Passmark DirectX 10 (28), DirectX 11 (42), DirectX 12 (24), DirectX 9 (99), G2D (381), G3D (5704), and GPU Compute (2289). The Quadro 2000 only has the Geekbench OpenCL result. This means the GTX 970M's average benchmark score of 4628 is computed from ten tests, while the Quadro 2000's average of 3898 comes from a single test, making the averages not directly comparable in scope.

The GTX 970M's nearest rivals by average score include the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, 0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4657, 0.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, 1.1% behind). The Quadro 2000's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, 0.4% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, 0.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930, 0.8% ahead). These proximity bands show that the GTX 970M sits in a performance tier roughly 20% higher than the Quadro 2000, based on their percentile positions (27th versus 23rd).

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, based solely on the recorded data:

• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 (GTX 970M) vs. Fermi (Quadro 2000)
• Chip: GM204 (GTX 970M) vs. GF106 (Quadro 2000)
• Generation: GeForce 900M (GTX 970M) vs. Quadro Fermi (x000) (Quadro 2000)
• Process node: 28 nm (GTX 970M) vs. 40 nm (Quadro 2000)
• Transistors: 5,200 million (GTX 970M) vs. 1,170 million (Quadro 2000)
• Die size: 398 mm² (GTX 970M) vs. 238 mm² (Quadro 2000)
• Transistor density: 13.1M / mm² (GTX 970M) vs. 4.9M / mm² (Quadro 2000)
• Base clock: 924 MHz (GTX 970M) vs. not specified (Quadro 2000)
• Boost clock: 1038 MHz (GTX 970M) vs. not specified (Quadro 2000)
• Memory clock: 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective (GTX 970M) vs. 650 MHz, 2.6 Gbps effective (Quadro 2000)
• Memory size: 6 GB (GTX 970M) vs. 1024 MB (Quadro 2000)
• Memory bus width: 192 bit (GTX 970M) vs. 128 bit (Quadro 2000)
• Memory bandwidth: 120.3 GB/s (GTX 970M) vs. 41.60 GB/s (Quadro 2000)
• Shading units: 1280 (GTX 970M) vs. 192 (Quadro 2000)
• TMUs: 80 (GTX 970M) vs. 32 (Quadro 2000)
• ROPs: 48 (GTX 970M) vs. 16 (Quadro 2000)
• Pixel rate: 49.82 GPixel/s (GTX 970M) vs. 5.000 GPixel/s (Quadro 2000)
• Texture rate: 83.04 GTexel/s (GTX 970M) vs. 20.00 GTexel/s (Quadro 2000)
• FP32: 2.657 TFLOPS (GTX 970M) vs. 480.0 GFLOPS (Quadro 2000)
• TDP: not specified (GTX 970M) vs. 62 W (Quadro 2000)
• Slot width: MXM Module (GTX 970M) vs. Single-slot (Quadro 2000)
• Suggested PSU: not specified (GTX 970M) vs. 250 W (Quadro 2000)
• Bus interface: MXM-B (3.0) (GTX 970M) vs. PCIe 2.0 x16 (Quadro 2000)
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent (GTX 970M) vs. 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort (Quadro 2000)
• DirectX: 12 (12_1) (GTX 970M) vs. 12 (11_0) (Quadro 2000)
• Vulkan: 1.4 (GTX 970M) vs. not specified (Quadro 2000)
• Dimensions: not specified (GTX 970M) vs. 178 mm (7 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height (Quadro 2000)
• Release date: 2014-10-06 (GTX 970M) vs. 2010-12-23 (Quadro 2000)
• Predecessor: GeForce 800M (GTX 970M) vs. Quadro FX Tesla (Quadro 2000)
• Successor: GeForce 10 Mobile (GTX 970M) vs. Quadro Kepler (Quadro 2000)
• Launch MSRP: not specified (GTX 970M) vs. 599 USD (Quadro 2000)

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970M wins every measurable comparison in the database. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18946 is 386% higher than the Quadro 2000's 3898, giving it a clear victory in compute workloads. The GTX 970M also has a higher average benchmark score (4628 vs. 3898) and a higher percentile rank (27th vs. 23rd). In terms of raw throughput, the GTX 970M's pixel rate (49.82 GPixel/s) and texture rate (83.04 GTexel/s) dwarf the Quadro 2000's 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s, respectively. Its memory bandwidth of 120.3 GB/s is nearly three times the Quadro 2000's 41.60 GB/s, which matters for large textures and high-resolution rendering.

The Quadro 2000 has no benchmark wins in this dataset. However, it does have some structural advantages that are not reflected in performance scores. It is a single-slot card with a 178 mm (7 inches) length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) height, making it physically smaller than the MXM Module form factor of the GTX 970M. It also has a specified TDP of 62 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the GTX 970M lists neither, though the GTX 970M's power connectors are also "None." The Quadro 2000 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, which is standard for desktop workstations, while the GTX 970M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus, indicating a mobile or modular design. The Quadro 2000 also has fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort), while the GTX 970M's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent."

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the superior GPU in all performance metrics. It offers 386% higher OpenCL performance, a higher average benchmark score, and a higher percentile ranking. For any compute-intensive task, such as OpenCL acceleration, the GTX 970M is the clear choice. Its larger memory pool (6 GB vs. 1 GB) and higher bandwidth (120.3 GB/s vs. 41.60 GB/s) also make it better suited for modern workloads with large data sets.

The Quadro 2000, however, retains relevance in specific scenarios. Its single-slot, compact form factor (178 mm length, 111 mm height) and low TDP of 62 W make it suitable for space-constrained or power-sensitive systems. Its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and fixed DVI/DisplayPort outputs are designed for traditional desktop workstations, whereas the GTX 970M's MXM Module format targets portable devices. The Quadro 2000 also has a documented launch MSRP of 599 USD, but the GTX 970M has no recorded launch price in the database.

For users choosing between the two, the decision hinges on form factor and workload. If the requirement is raw performance, the GTX 970M is the only option, as it wins the sole head-to-head test and leads in every architectural specification. If the requirement is a low-profile, low-power desktop card with legacy outputs, the Quadro 2000 may still fit, but it will deliver roughly a fifth of the OpenCL compute performance. The data does not support any scenario where the Quadro 2000 outperforms the GTX 970M in benchmark scores. Therefore, the GTX 970M is the recommended purchase for performance, while the Quadro 2000 is only preferable for its physical and interface characteristics, not its computational results.