NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK are two extremely different NVIDIA graphics cards aimed at entirely separate markets, and the benchmark data reflects this divide. The Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation part from 2015, built on the Maxwell architecture, while the GTX TITAN BLACK is a 2014 desktop enthusiast card based on Kepler. In the two available head-to-head benchmarks, the TITAN BLACK is decisively ahead, with a 63.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 67.5% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. However, the TITAN BLACK’s average benchmark score of 9474 is actually slightly lower than the M2000M’s 9832, a quirk driven by the TITAN’s inclusion of older DirectX 9 and 10 tests where it scores poorly. The data ultimately shows a clear pick: the TITAN BLACK for raw compute and desktop performance, and the M2000M for a specific mobile workstation niche.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK is the definitive performance winner in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 27218 against the Quadro M2000M’s 10057, a commanding 63.1% advantage. The gap widens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the TITAN BLACK hits 29561 versus the M2000M’s 9606, a 67.5% margin. For any task that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the TITAN BLACK is the clear choice. Its underlying hardware is simply in a different class: the TITAN BLACK packs 2880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, compared to the M2000M’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The TITAN BLACK also offers 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus the M2000M’s 4 GB on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The M2000M posts an average benchmark score of 9832, which is 3.8% higher than the TITAN BLACK’s 9474. This inversion occurs because the TITAN BLACK’s benchmark suite includes Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests, where it scores 133, 47, 73, and 34 respectively, dragging down its average. The M2000M only has Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results, which are both relatively strong for its class. The M2000M sits in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the TITAN BLACK is in the 46th percentile, making them statistically comparable overall despite the TITAN’s massive raw compute lead.

For buyers, the choice is straightforward based on the data. If you need maximum compute performance and have a desktop with a 600 W power supply, the TITAN BLACK is the only option, as the M2000M is an MXM module for portable devices. If you require a mobile workstation GPU with a 55 W TDP and no external power connectors, the M2000M is the sole choice. The TITAN BLACK’s launch MSRP was 999 USD, a figure not applicable to the M2000M, which has no listed launch price. The TITAN BLACK also requires a dual-slot chassis, 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and measures 267 mm in length, making it unsuitable for anything but a full desktop.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK scores 27218 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 63.1% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M’s 10057.

Q: Are the average benchmark scores similar?

A: Yes, they are close. The Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9832, while the GTX TITAN BLACK averages 9474, a difference of roughly 3.8% in favor of the M2000M.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX TITAN BLACK provides 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth via a 384-bit bus, whereas the Quadro M2000M offers 80.19 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The TITAN BLACK has over four times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card is designed for mobile use?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is an MXM Module with a slot width of MXM-A (3.0), making it a portable device component. The GTX TITAN BLACK is a dual-slot desktop card with a 267 mm length and requires a 600 W power supply.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The GTX TITAN BLACK has 2880 shading units, while the Quadro M2000M has 640. This represents a 4.5x difference in raw shader count.

Q: What is the production status of both cards?

A: Both the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK are listed as end-of-life products. The M2000M was released in December 2015, and the TITAN BLACK in February 2014.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from NVIDIA. The Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, while the GTX TITAN BLACK uses the GK110B chip based on the older Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, and they share the same transistor density of 12.6M per mm². However, the physical scale differs dramatically. The TITAN BLACK’s GK110B die is 561 mm² and contains 7,080 million transistors, whereas the M2000M’s GM107 die is just 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors. This means the TITAN BLACK has nearly four times the transistor count and a die over 3.7 times larger.

The architectural generation gap is also reflected in their supported APIs. The Maxwell-based M2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Kepler-based TITAN BLACK supports a slightly higher DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level, OpenGL 4.6, and an older Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards have no dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as neither architecture includes those features. The TITAN BLACK’s newer DirectX 12 (11_1) support gives it a marginal edge in feature level, but the M2000M’s newer Vulkan version suggests better compatibility with modern Vulkan applications.

The compute capabilities are starkly different due to the architecture scale. The TITAN BLACK delivers 5.645 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the M2000M offers 1,455.4 GFLOPS. Neither card has FP16 support listed. The TITAN BLACK’s pixel rate is 58.80 GPixel/s and texture rate is 235.2 GTexel/s, compared to the M2000M’s 18.19 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s. These figures highlight that the TITAN BLACK is a massively parallel compute monster, while the M2000M is a modest mobile part designed for efficiency.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals a wide gulf between these two cards, starting with their physical form factors. The Quadro M2000M is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors, drawing just 55 W. The GTX TITAN BLACK is a dual-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, requiring 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 250 W TDP, with a suggested power supply of 600 W. The TITAN BLACK measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 38 mm in width, while the M2000M has no listed dimensions because it is a mobile module.

Memory configurations are another major differentiator. The M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, running at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed. The TITAN BLACK has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, clocked at 1750 MHz with 7 Gbps effective speed. This results in bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s for the M2000M versus 336.0 GB/s for the TITAN BLACK. The TITAN BLACK’s memory subsystem is over four times faster in raw bandwidth.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The M2000M actually runs at a higher base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz, compared to the TITAN BLACK’s 889 MHz base and 980 MHz boost. However, the TITAN BLACK’s massive core configuration more than compensates for its lower clocks. The M2000M’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the TITAN BLACK offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The TITAN BLACK has a clearly defined launch MSRP of 999 USD, which is not present for the M2000M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is limited to two tests, but both are decisive wins for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN BLACK scores 27218 against the Quadro M2000M’s 10057, a delta of 63.1% in favor of the desktop card. This result is unsurprising given the TITAN BLACK’s 2880 shading units and 5.645 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, which dwarf the M2000M’s 640 shading units and 1,455.4 GFLOPS. The OpenCL test stresses raw compute, and the TITAN BLACK’s Kepler architecture with its massive core count simply overwhelms the mobile Maxwell part.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The TITAN BLACK scores 29561, while the M2000M manages 9606, giving the TITAN BLACK a 67.5% advantage. Vulkan is a lower-level API that benefits from raw hardware throughput, and the TITAN BLACK’s 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 235.2 GTexel/s texture rate provide a substantial edge over the M2000M’s 80.19 GB/s and 45.48 GTexel/s. The M2000M’s newer Vulkan 1.4 support does not help it overcome the hardware deficit.

Looking beyond the head-to-head tests, the average benchmark scores provide additional context. The M2000M’s average of 9832 places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000, making it a solid mid-range performer. The TITAN BLACK’s average of 9474 is 0.2% ahead of the GeForce GTX 760 and 1.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M380, but 1.7% behind the Quadro K5000 and 1.8% behind the GeForce GTX 960M. These rival comparisons show that while the TITAN BLACK wins the direct head-to-head, its overall benchmark profile is less dominant due to weak legacy DirectX scores. The M2000M, by contrast, benefits from having only its two strongest tests counted in its average, making its percentile rank of 47 slightly higher than the TITAN BLACK’s 46.