NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between these two GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 18,946 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3,930 points. That is a delta of 382.1% in favor of the GTX 970M, meaning it delivers roughly 4.8 times the raw compute performance of the Quadro 2000D in this workload. The margin is so large that it dwarfs the typical gaps seen between adjacent entries in the database; most rival pairs sit within a few percentage points of each other, but here the two products are in entirely different performance classes.

Looking at the average benchmark scores reinforces this separation. The GTX 970M carries an average score of 4,628 across all recorded tests, while the Quadro 2000D averages 3,930. The GTX 970M also holds a 27th percentile position among all GPUs in the database, whereas the Quadro 2000D sits at the 23rd percentile. Although both are below the midpoint of the overall distribution, the GTX 970M is meaningfully higher, and its single benchmark win is backed by a broader suite of tests that show consistent strengths across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 workloads, plus compute and 2D tests.

For context on where the GTX 970M stands relative to its immediate peers, the nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (average score 4,621, delta 0.2%), the AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4,657, delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4,657, delta -0.6%), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4,577, delta 1.1%). The GTX 970M is essentially neck-and-neck with those cards, trailing the AMD entries by less than 1% and leading the Quadro M3000M by a hair. That places it in a crowded mid-range cluster, but the Quadro 2000D is not part of that group; its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3,919, delta 0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3,953, delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3,956, delta -0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3,957, delta -0.7%). The 2000D leads those cards by less than 1%, but the gap between the two reviewed products is many times larger than any of these neighbor deltas.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, with an average score of 4,628 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D's 3,930.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 970M in the only shared benchmark test?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970M scores 18,946 versus 3,930 for the Quadro 2000D, a delta of 382.1%.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card?

A: The GTX 970M ranks in the 27th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000D ranks in the 23rd percentile.

Q: Which card supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1?

A: Only the GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The Quadro 2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: Does the Quadro 2000D support Vulkan?

A: No, the Vulkan API field for the Quadro 2000D is null, whereas the GTX 970M supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, while the Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, which explains most of the performance gap. The GTX 970M is built on Maxwell 2.0, using the GM204 chip, and is fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Quadro 2000D uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, manufactured at TSMC on a 40 nm process. The process node shift from 40 nm to 28 nm is significant, as it allows the Maxwell chip to pack far more transistors into a similar physical footprint. The GM204 contains 5,200 million transistors on a die size of 398 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The GF106, by contrast, has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, for a density of 4.9 million per square millimeter.

That density advantage translates directly into compute resources. The GTX 970M carries 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Maxwell part also has a much larger memory subsystem: 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit interface with 120.3 GB/s of bandwidth, versus 1 GB on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s. Clock behavior differs as well; the GTX 970M has a base clock of 924 MHz and a boost clock of 1038 MHz, while the Quadro 2000D has no recorded base or boost clock values, only a memory clock of 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). The GTX 970M's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The feature sets also reflect their respective generations. The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores; these are pre-RTX products. The GTX 970M's pixel rate is 49.82 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 83.04 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 2000D manages 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput tells the same story: 2.657 TFLOPS for the GTX 970M versus 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000D.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Fermi |

| Chip | GM204 | GF106 |

| Generation | GeForce 900M | Quadro Fermi (x000) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 924 MHz | None recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | None recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 120.3 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 192 |

| TMUs | 80 | 32 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.82 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 83.04 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.657 TFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | None recorded | 62 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None recorded | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | None |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 178 mm (7 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2014-10-06 | 2011-10-04 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800M | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | GeForce 10 Mobile | Quadro Kepler |

| Launch MSRP | None | 599 USD |

Both cards share the same manufacturer, foundry, memory type (GDDR5), OpenGL version (4.6), and production status (end-of-life). Neither has a power connector requirement, and both are listed as having no suggested PSU except the Quadro 2000D, which specifies a 250 W unit.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a single benchmark category, and the GTX 970M wins it outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, it beats the Quadro 2000D by 382.1%. That is not a marginal edge; it is a full generational leap. The GTX 970M also has a higher average score across all its recorded tests (4,628 versus 3,930), a higher percentile rank (27th versus 23rd), and a broader set of benchmark entries, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests plus compute and 2D tests. The Quadro 2000D has only one recorded benchmark result, which means the database cannot claim any test where it wins.

For workloads that rely on raw compute, memory bandwidth, or modern API support, the GTX 970M is the clear pick. Its 6 GB frame buffer and 120.3 GB/s bandwidth suit larger textures and datasets, while its Vulkan 1.4 support allows for cross-platform graphics workloads that the Quadro 2000D cannot handle. The Quadro 2000D, by contrast, offers a single-slot form factor, a 62 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested PSU, which makes it a low-power option for legacy systems with PCIe 2.0 x16 slots. It also has fixed display outputs (2x DVI), which can be an advantage in static workstation setups, whereas the GTX 970M's outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the superior product for nearly any compute or graphics task. It wins the only head-to-head test by a factor of almost five, holds a higher average score, ranks in a higher percentile, and supports modern APIs like Vulkan and DirectX 12 (12_1). The Quadro 2000D's advantages are limited to physical attributes: it is a single-slot card with a lower TDP (62 W versus no recorded TDP for the GTX 970M), a lower suggested PSU requirement (250 W), and fixed DVI outputs. Those traits may appeal to someone building or maintaining a compact, low-power workstation with an older PCIe 2.0 slot, but they do not compensate for the massive performance deficit.

For anyone choosing between these two, the decision hinges on the workload. If the task involves modern rendering, compute-heavy simulations, or large memory footprints, the GTX 970M is the only viable option. If the requirement is a minimal-power, single-slot card for basic 2D display output or legacy software that does not leverage modern APIs, the Quadro 2000D could still function, but its 1 GB memory and 41.60 GB/s bandwidth will bottleneck any serious 3D or compute work. The database does not record a single metric where the Quadro 2000D outperforms the GTX 970M, so the verdict is unambiguous: the GTX 970M wins on every measurable performance criterion.