NVIDIA Quadro 2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a clear, if modest, winner. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718. That translates to a 4.8% advantage for the desktop card. In practical terms, this is a narrow margin—not the kind of gap that would redefine a workflow, but a consistent one nonetheless.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape reinforces where each card sits. The Quadro 2000’s score places it just 0.4% above the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883), and 0.5% below the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919). The Quadro 3000M, meanwhile, lands in a virtual tie with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (3717) at a 0% delta, and sits 1.9% above the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649). What this tells us is that neither card is a performance outlier; both are clustered tightly with mid-range parts from their respective eras.

The delta of 4.8% between the two Quadros is larger than the gaps separating each from several of its nearest rivals. The Quadro 2000 is closer to the Quadro K2000D (0.5% gap) than it is to the Quadro 3000M. Similarly, the Quadro 3000M is essentially indistinguishable from the GeForce GT 740M. This suggests that the architectural differences between the two cards produce a real but bounded performance spread.

Benchmark results indicate the Quadro 2000 wins the only comparative test, but the win is not decisive. A 4.8% lead in OpenCL compute is within the range of driver or thermal variation, yet the data consistently favors the desktop part. The Quadro 3000M, despite its larger memory pool and wider bus, does not translate those specifications into a compute advantage in this test.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the Fermi architecture, the TSMC 40 nm process, and the GDDR5 memory type, but the underlying chips diverge significantly. The Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip, with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip, which is substantially larger: 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story—4.9M / mm² for the GF106 versus 5.9M / mm² for the GF104—indicating the mobile chip packs its transistors more tightly.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The Quadro 2000 comes with 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 3000M doubles the capacity to 2 GB, doubles the bus width to 256 bit, and nearly doubles the bandwidth to 80.00 GB/s. Memory clocks are close—650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) for the desktop card versus 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) for the mobile part—so the bandwidth advantage comes entirely from the wider bus.

Compute resources tell a more nuanced story. The Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Quadro 2000 counters with 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer units, the Quadro 2000 posts higher raw rates: 5.000 GPixel/s pixel fill versus 4.500 GPixel/s, and 20.00 GTexel/s texture fill versus 18.00 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is also higher at 480.0 GFLOPS compared to 432.0 GFLOPS for the mobile card. This is likely a clock-speed effect, as the desktop part can sustain higher operating frequencies within its 62 W TDP, while the mobile card is constrained to 75 W but in a thermal envelope designed for laptops.

The physical form factors could not be more different. The Quadro 2000 is a single-slot, 178 mm (7-inch) long desktop card with a 111 mm (4.4-inch) height, requiring no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The Quadro 3000M is an MXM Module using the MXM-B (3.0) interface, with dimensions not specified and display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." Both support the same API levels—DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6—with no Vulkan support listed for either.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898, which is 4.8% higher than the Quadro 3000M's 3718.

Q: Does the Quadro 3000M have a memory advantage?

A: Yes. The Quadro 3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, versus 1024 MB on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s for the Quadro 2000.

Q: How do their compute specifications compare?

A: The Quadro 3000M has more shading units (240 vs 192), TMUs (40 vs 32), and ROPs (32 vs 16), but the Quadro 2000 has higher FP32 throughput (480.0 GFLOPS vs 432.0 GFLOPS) and higher pixel/texture rates.

Q: Are they on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Fermi architecture on TSMC's 40 nm process, but with different chips: GF106 for the Quadro 2000 and GF104 for the Quadro 3000M.

Q: What is the nearest rival for each card?

A: The Quadro 2000's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, just 0.4% higher. The Quadro 3000M's closest is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, at a 0% delta.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro 2000 achieves 5.000 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 3000M achieves 4.500 GPixel/s.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if unexpected, picture. The desktop-oriented Quadro 2000 outperforms the mobile Quadro 3000M in the only benchmark available, despite having fewer compute units and less memory bandwidth. The 4.8% OpenCL delta is modest but consistent with the higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput of the desktop part.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in a fixed desktop workstation, the Quadro 2000 is the data-backed choice. It wins the head-to-head benchmark, carries a higher average benchmark score (3898 vs 3718), and achieves a slightly better percentile ranking at 23 versus 22. Its lower TDP (62 W vs 75 W) and single-slot form factor also make it easier to integrate into a compact system.

For users who need the Quadro 3000M's memory capabilities, the story is different. The 2 GB capacity and 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth are double the Quadro 2000's specifications. In workloads that are bandwidth-bound—large textures, high-resolution buffers, or multi-display configurations—the mobile card's wider memory path could offset its compute deficit. However, the data does not include a benchmark that tests this scenario, so this remains an inference from the specification differences.

The launch MSRP for the Quadro 2000 is 599 USD, a figure that places it in the professional mid-range. The Quadro 3000M has no listed launch MSRP, reflecting its role as an OEM mobile component. The production status for both is end-of-life, so any purchase decision would be for legacy systems or replacements.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measured category except architecture, foundry, process node, memory type, and API support. The chip is different (GF106 vs GF104), as are transistor counts (1,170 vs 1,950 million) and die sizes (238 mm² vs 332 mm²). Transistor density is higher on the mobile part at 5.9M / mm² versus 4.9M / mm².

Memory speed differs slightly: the Quadro 2000 runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 3000M runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). Memory size (1024 MB vs 2 GB), bus width (128 bit vs 256 bit), and bandwidth (41.60 GB/s vs 80.00 GB/s) all favor the mobile card.

Shading units (192 vs 240), TMUs (32 vs 40), and ROPs (16 vs 32) all favor the Quadro 3000M in count, but the Quadro 2000 wins in pixel rate (5.000 vs 4.500 GPixel/s), texture rate (20.00 vs 18.00 GTexel/s), and FP32 (480.0 vs 432.0 GFLOPS).

TDP differs (62 W vs 75 W), as does slot width (Single-slot vs MXM Module), power connectors (None for both, but the Quadro 2000 has a suggested 250 W PSU while the Quadro 3000M has none listed), and bus interface (PCIe 2.0 x16 vs MXM-B 3.0). Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort for the desktop card versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the mobile part. Dimensions are specified for the Quadro 2000 (178 mm length, 111 mm height) but not for the Quadro 3000M. Release dates are December 2010 for the Quadro 2000 and February 2011 for the Quadro 3000M. The Quadro 2000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the Quadro 3000M has none.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 2000 wins in compute throughput, as measured by Geekbench OpenCL. Its higher FP32 rate, pixel fill, and texture fill make it the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute, rendering tasks that rely on shader math, and any workload where the benchmark score is the primary indicator. It also wins on physical design for desktop integration—single-slot, no power connectors, and a modest 250 W PSU requirement. The 178 mm length fits in most standard chassis.

The Quadro 3000M wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. The 2 GB frame buffer and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth are double the Quadro 2000's figures, which matters for large dataset manipulation, high-resolution texture streaming, or applications that cache geometry in VRAM. Its MXM form factor makes it the only choice for laptop or mobile workstation upgrades, where the Quadro 2000 cannot physically be installed. It also has more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, which could benefit workloads that are latency-bound rather than throughput-bound, though the benchmark data does not show this advantage manifesting in the OpenCL test.

The percentile rankings—23rd for the Quadro 2000 and 22nd for the Quadro 3000M—suggest both are near the bottom of the GPU performance distribution, but the desktop card holds a marginal edge. For a legacy system where a drop-in desktop replacement is needed, the Quadro 2000 is the data-supported pick. For a mobile workstation requiring a specific MXM module, the Quadro 3000M is not just an option but the only compatible one, and its memory subsystem provides a tangible specification advantage that the benchmark does not capture.