NVIDIA Quadro 2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 are both Fermi-architecture professional GPUs built on the same GF106 chip, but they target fundamentally different form factors. The 2000M is a mobile-focused MXM module, while the 2000 is a desktop single-slot card. Despite sharing the same core configuration, their memory subsystems and clock speeds create distinct performance profiles that matter depending on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split between the two cards, with the desktop Quadro 2000 taking the outright lead in the single available benchmark. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 2000 scores 3898, while the Quadro 2000M scores 3434. That is a 464-point gap, translating to an 11.9% advantage for the desktop card. This is the only head-to-head benchmark provided, and it establishes the Quadro 2000 as the stronger compute performer.

The Quadro 2000's win comes from its higher memory clock and faster memory type. The Quadro 2000 uses GDDR5 memory rated at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 2000M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1.8 Gbps effective). This results in substantially higher memory bandwidth for the desktop card: 41.60 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. For OpenCL workloads that stress memory throughput, this difference is decisive.

However, the Quadro 2000M has its own advantages in specific use cases. Its 2 GB frame buffer doubles the Quadro 2000's 1024 MB capacity. For applications that need to hold larger datasets or textures in VRAM, the mobile card offers more headroom. The Quadro 2000M also consumes less power at 55 W versus 62 W, making it suitable for thermal-constrained environments. Its MXM module form factor means it is designed for portable workstations, where space and cooling are at a premium.

The pixel and texture rates also favor the desktop card. The Quadro 2000 achieves 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 2000M reaches 4.400 GPixel/s and 17.60 GTexel/s. These figures indicate the desktop card can fill geometry and process textures faster, which benefits viewport performance in CAD and 3D modeling applications.

The Verdict

The verdict from the benchmark data is straightforward: the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is the faster card. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 3898 places it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000M sits at the 21st percentile with its score of 3434. The desktop card outperforms its mobile sibling by 11.9% in the only direct comparison available.

The Quadro 2000 is the pick for users who prioritize raw compute performance and memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory at 41.60 GB/s provides 44% more bandwidth than the Quadro 2000M's DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s. The desktop card also offers higher pixel and texture throughput, making it better suited for rendering tasks that push the GPU's shading and rasterization capabilities.

The Quadro 2000M is the choice for mobile workstation scenarios where the 2 GB frame buffer and lower 55 W power draw are more important than peak performance. Its larger memory capacity could be decisive for specific professional workloads that require more VRAM than 1024 MB can provide. The mobile card is not without merit, but the data shows it trails the desktop part in every throughput metric.

Users with a desktop workstation should select the Quadro 2000 for its superior compute scores and memory bandwidth. Users needing a portable solution with greater frame buffer capacity should consider the Quadro 2000M, accepting the performance trade-off. The benchmark results indicate no scenario where the Quadro 2000M wins on raw speed, but its feature set serves a different purpose.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The Quadro 2000 scores 3898, beating the Quadro 2000M's 3434 by 11.9%. This is a meaningful margin in compute workloads, placing the desktop card in a higher performance tier relative to its rivals.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides context for these scores. The Quadro 2000M's 3434 score is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 at 3431, a delta of just 0.1%. It also edges out the Intel HD Graphics P4600 by 1.3% and the Intel HD Graphics 530 by 3.1%. However, it trails the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX by 2.7%. This places the mobile Quadro in the entry-level performance segment, competitive with integrated graphics and low-end discrete GPUs.

The Quadro 2000's 3898 score puts it in a higher bracket. It is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D. The Quadro 2000D is 0.8% ahead, and the GeForce GT 745M leads by 1.4%. This clustering shows the Quadro 2000 performing at a level comparable to mid-range desktop and mobile GPUs from its era, with the desktop card firmly ahead of its mobile counterpart.

The memory bandwidth difference explains much of the gap. At 41.60 GB/s, the Quadro 2000 has 44% more bandwidth than the Quadro 2000M's 28.80 GB/s. This is a substantial advantage for OpenCL workloads that are memory-bound. The desktop card's GDDR5 memory operates at 650 MHz, while the mobile card's DDR3 runs at 900 MHz, but the GDDR5's higher effective data rate (2.6 Gbps vs 1.8 Gbps) delivers the bandwidth advantage.

Compute throughput also favors the desktop card. The Quadro 2000 delivers 480.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro 2000M delivers 422.4 GFLOPS. That is a 13.6% difference in raw compute. The texture rate follows a similar pattern: 20.00 GTexel/s for the desktop versus 17.60 GTexel/s for the mobile card. Pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s. Every throughput metric favors the Quadro 2000.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has higher memory bandwidth at 41.60 GB/s, compared to the Quadro 2000M's 28.80 GB/s. This is due to the desktop card's GDDR5 memory operating at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), versus the mobile card's DDR3 at 900 MHz (1.8 Gbps effective).

Q: Does the Quadro 2000M have more video memory?

A: Yes, the Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5. The mobile card offers double the capacity, which can be beneficial for workloads requiring larger frame buffers.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Quadro 2000 scores 3898, which is 11.9% higher than the Quadro 2000M's 3434. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it shows the desktop card as the clear winner.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 2000M's score of 3434 is within 0.1% of the GeForce GT 740 and 1.3% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P4600, but 2.7% behind the GeForce 920MX. The Quadro 2000's score of 3898 is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics and 0.5% behind the Quadro K2000D.

Q: Do both cards use the same chip?

A: Yes, both the Quadro 2000M and Quadro 2000 use the GF106 chip built on TSMC's 40 nm process. Both have 1,170 million transistors and a die size of 238 mm², with a transistor density of 4.9M per mm².

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W and uses an MXM module slot with no power connectors. The Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W, uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, and has no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Fermi architecture using the GF106 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. They share identical transistor counts of 1,170 million and die sizes of 238 mm², resulting in the same transistor density of 4.9M per mm². The core configuration is also identical: 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

The key architectural differences lie in the memory subsystem. The Quadro 2000M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, but achieves 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock differs significantly: the mobile card runs at 900 MHz (1.8 Gbps effective), while the desktop card runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). The GDDR5's higher data rate per pin compensates for its lower clock speed.

These memory differences cascade into other performance metrics. The Quadro 2000's pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000M. Texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 480.0 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS. The desktop card leads in every throughput category.

Form factor and interface also distinguish the two. The Quadro 2000M is an MXM-A (3.0) module with a slot width of MXM Module, designed for portable devices with display outputs dependent on the host system. The Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm (7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, using a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs. The desktop card's suggested PSU is 250 W, while the mobile card has no such requirement.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The Quadro 2000M was released on January 12, 2011, while the Quadro 2000 came slightly earlier on December 23, 2010. The mobile card's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M, while the desktop card follows the Quadro FX Tesla and leads to the Quadro Kepler. The Quadro 2000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. Both cards are end-of-life products.