NVIDIA GeForce MX350 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

# The Verdict

The data presents a split decision between two end-of-life mobile GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M each claim one benchmark victory, with the overall average score favoring the MX350 by a narrow margin. The MX350 posts an average benchmark score of 10883 across Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, placing it at the 49th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro M2000M trails with an average score of 9832, sitting at the 47th percentile. That 10.7% gap in average score is meaningful, but the individual test results tell a more nuanced story.

For users prioritizing compute workloads in OpenCL, the Quadro M2000M is the clear choice. It delivers 10057 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 13.6% ahead of the MX350's 8689 in that same test. This advantage aligns with the Quadro's workstation heritage and its larger memory configuration. Conversely, for Vulkan-based applications and gaming scenarios, the MX350 dominates. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 13077 crushes the M2000M's 9606 by 36.1%, a decisive margin that reflects the newer architecture's API efficiency.

The MX350's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (0.7% slower), NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (1.1% slower), GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (1.5% faster), and Radeon RX 550 (1.7% faster). The M2000M sits near the Quadro 6000 (0.1% faster), FirePro W5000 (0.3% slower), GeForce GTX 1070 (0.5% slower), and Tesla M10 (1.1% faster). These tight deltas indicate both GPUs are competitive with their contemporaries, but neither is a standout performer.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The MX350 uses the GP107S chip built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The M2000M relies on the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm node. This process difference is stark: 14 nm versus 28 nm represents a full node generation leap. The MX350 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The M2000M contains 1,870 million transistors on a larger 148 mm² die, with a density of just 12.6M per mm². The MX350's density advantage is nearly double, a direct consequence of the newer fabrication process.

Both GPUs share identical shading unit counts at 640, and both feature 16 ROPs. The similarity ends there. The MX350 fields 32 texture mapping units, while the M2000M has 40 TMUs. Clock speeds favor the MX350, with a base of 1354 MHz and boost of 1468 MHz, compared to the M2000M's 1098 MHz base and 1137 MHz boost. The MX350's boost clock runs 29.1% higher than the M2000M's, contributing to its superior pixel and texture rates. The MX350 achieves 23.49 GPixel/s and 46.98 GTexel/s, while the M2000M manages 18.19 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The MX350 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The M2000M doubles capacity to 4 GB on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s. Memory clocks also differ: 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the MX350 versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the M2000M. Despite the MX350's faster memory clock, the M2000M's wider bus provides 43% more bandwidth. FP32 compute favors the MX350 at 1.879 TFLOPS against the M2000M's 1,455.4 GFLOPS. The MX350 also supports FP16 at 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the M2000M lists no FP16 capability.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The MX350 sips 20 W, while the M2000M draws 55 W. That 35 W gap makes the MX350 far better suited to thin-and-light portables. The M2000M employs an MXM Module form factor with MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, whereas the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. Both are end-of-life products, but their release dates differ by over four years: the M2000M arrived in December 2015, the MX350 in February 2020. The M2000M's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M, with the Quadro Pascal-M as its successor. DirectX support differs as well, with the MX350 supporting 12_1 and the M2000M limited to 11_0.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The MX350 holds the higher average benchmark score at 10883, which is 10.7% above the M2000M's 9832. The MX350 also ranks at the 49th percentile versus the M2000M's 47th percentile.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000M win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes. The M2000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 10057, beating the MX350's 8689 by 13.6%. This is its only head-to-head victory.

Q: How large is the MX350's Vulkan advantage?

A: The MX350 scores 13077 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 36.1% higher than the M2000M's 9606. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark.

Q: Why does the M2000M have higher memory bandwidth despite older technology?

A: The M2000M uses a 128-bit memory bus versus the MX350's 64-bit bus. Even with a slower memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) compared to 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), the wider bus yields 80.19 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The MX350 has a 20 W TDP, which is 35 W lower than the M2000M's 55 W TDP. This makes the MX350 substantially more suitable for power-constrained mobile designs.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: No. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the M2000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every specification except shading units, ROPs, and display outputs. The MX350 uses a GP107S chip on Pascal architecture with a 14 nm Samsung process, while the M2000M uses GM107 on Maxwell with a 28 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts differ substantially: 3,300 million for the MX350 versus 1,870 million for the M2000M. Die size is 132 mm² for the MX350 and 148 mm² for the M2000M. Transistor density heavily favors the MX350 at 25.0M / mm² against 12.6M / mm².

Clock speeds show the MX350 leading in both base (1354 MHz vs 1098 MHz) and boost (1468 MHz vs 1137 MHz). Memory clocks also favor the MX350 at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). However, memory capacity and bus width favor the M2000M: 4 GB on a 128-bit bus versus 2 GB on a 64-bit bus. Consequently, the M2000M's bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s exceeds the MX350's 56.06 GB/s.

Texture mapping units differ, with the M2000M having 40 TMUs against the MX350's 32. Pixel rate favors the MX350 at 23.49 GPixel/s versus 18.19 GPixel/s. Texture rate is nearly identical: 46.98 GTexel/s for the MX350 and 45.48 GTexel/s for the M2000M. FP32 performance is higher on the MX350 at 1.879 TFLOPS versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS. Only the MX350 lists FP16 performance at 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64). TDP shows a significant gap: 20 W for the MX350 versus 55 W for the M2000M. The MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the M2000M uses MXM-A (3.0). DirectX support differs, with the MX350 at 12_1 and the M2000M at 11_0. Release dates are over four years apart: February 2020 for the MX350 and December 2015 for the M2000M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results present a clear trade-off between compute and graphics workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M2000M wins decisively with 10057 points against the MX350's 8689, a 13.6% advantage. This result aligns with the M2000M's higher memory bandwidth (80.19 GB/s vs 56.06 GB/s) and greater memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB). OpenCL workloads often benefit from larger memory pools and wider buses, and the data reflects that. The M2000M's 40 TMUs also provide additional texture-processing capability that can aid certain compute tasks.

The Geekbench Vulkan result reverses the outcome emphatically. The MX350 scores 13077, which is 36.1% above the M2000M's 9606. This is the largest delta in either direction across all tests. The MX350's Pascal architecture, with its newer API implementation and higher clock speeds, clearly handles Vulkan more efficiently. The MX350's 1468 MHz boost clock, compared to the M2000M's 1137 MHz, likely contributes to this substantial lead. The FP32 throughput advantage (1.879 TFLOPS vs 1,455.4 GFLOPS) also plays a role in Vulkan's compute-heavy dispatch model.

When examining the nearest rival data, both GPUs sit in a dense performance cluster. The MX350's average score of 10883 places it within 1.7% of its nearest competitors, with the Radeon RX 550 just 1.7% faster and the Radeon Pro 450 just 0.7% slower. The M2000M's average of 9832 sits within 1.1% of its nearest rivals, with the Quadro 6000 0.1% faster and the FirePro W5000 0.3% slower. These tight margins suggest that neither GPU offers a significant performance edge over its direct contemporaries.

The wins are split evenly at one apiece, but the magnitude of the MX350's Vulkan victory (36.1%) far exceeds the M2000M's OpenCL win (13.6%). For users whose workloads lean toward Vulkan, the MX350 offers a dramatically better experience. For OpenCL-centric compute tasks, the M2000M provides a more modest but still meaningful advantage. Given the MX350's higher average score, better percentile ranking, lower power draw, and substantially newer release date, the data leans toward the MX350 as the more well-rounded option. The M2000M remains relevant only for specific OpenCL compute scenarios where its memory advantages and 13.6% score lead justify its 55 W power draw and older architecture.