NVIDIA Quadro 2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains exactly one shared benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000: the Geekbench OpenCL compute test. This single data point is decisive, with the M3000M scoring 16,646 against the Quadro 2000's 3,898. That translates to a delta of 327%, meaning the M3000M delivers more than four times the raw compute performance of the older card in this workload. The gap is enormous, and it reflects the generational chasm between the two products.

Looking at the broader database context, the M3000M's average benchmark score of 4,621 places it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970M (average score 4,628, a delta of -0.1%), the Radeon R5 M320 (4,657, -0.8%), and the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4,657, -0.8%). The M3000M sits essentially level with these cards, within a single percentage point in either direction. The Quadro 2000, by contrast, has an average score of 3,898, placing it in the 23rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Radeon R5 Graphics (3,883, +0.4%), Quadro K2000D (3,919, -0.5%), Quadro 2000D (3,930, -0.8%), and GeForce GT 745M (3,953, -1.4%). The Quadro 2000 is similarly clustered with its peers, but at a much lower absolute performance tier.

The M3000M also shows a stronger spread across other benchmark categories, though those are not directly comparable to the Quadro 2000 since the latter lacks scores in those tests. The M3000M records Passmark G3D at 5,543, Passmark G2D at 402, and Passmark GPU Compute at 2,139. It also posts scores in DirectX 9 (98), DirectX 10 (26), DirectX 11 (42), and DirectX 12 (23). These figures illustrate a card that handles legacy and modern APIs alike, though the older DirectX 10 and 12 scores are low in absolute terms. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 16,668 is nearly identical to the OpenCL score, indicating consistent compute throughput across different APIs.

The delta of 327% in OpenCL is the headline number. It is not a marginal improvement; it is a wholesale leap. The Quadro 2000, with its single benchmark score, cannot compete on any measurable axis in this comparison. The data shows a clean sweep: one win for the M3000M, zero for the Quadro 2000.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M3000M than the Quadro 2000 in OpenCL compute?

A: The M3000M scores 16,646 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 2000 scores 3,898. That is a 327% advantage for the M3000M.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4,621, placing it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro 2000 averages 3,898, placing it in the 23rd percentile.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The M3000M has 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units and 32 TMUs.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The M3000M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 2000 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support Vulkan?

A: The M3000M reports Vulkan 1.4 support. The Quadro 2000 lists no Vulkan support in the database.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The M3000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The Quadro 2000 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural generations, and the data makes that clear. The M3000M is built on Maxwell 2.0, using the GM204 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 2000 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. The process node difference alone, 28 nm versus 40 nm, contributes significantly to the performance and efficiency gap.

Transistor density tells the story of integration. The M3000M packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro 2000 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, for a density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The M3000M is nearly three times denser, which explains its ability to deliver far more compute units in a similar physical footprint.

The compute resources differ drastically. The M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 5.3x advantage in shading units and a 2x advantage in both TMUs and ROPs. Pixel rate for the M3000M is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000. Texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS, a nearly 4x gap.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 41.60 GB/s. The memory clock for the M3000M is 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 2000 runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). The bandwidth difference is nearly 4x, which matters for texture-heavy and compute workloads.

The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan. The DirectX feature level difference (12_1 versus 11_0) means the M3000M can handle more modern rendering features. The M3000M also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro 2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, halving the available bus bandwidth for data transfers.

Power and physical design differ as well. The M3000M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module form factor, which is typical for mobile workstations. The Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W, is a single-slot card, and measures 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Quadro 2000 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the M3000M has no such listing. Neither card requires external power connectors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Quadro M3000M is the superior card in every measurable way. Its OpenCL score is 327% higher, its memory bandwidth is nearly 4x greater, and its compute resources are multiples of the Quadro 2000's. The M3000M also has a higher average benchmark score (4,621 versus 3,898) and a higher percentile ranking (27th versus 23rd). For any workload that relies on GPU compute, rendering, or modern API support, the M3000M is the only rational choice.

The Quadro 2000, however, is not without its niche. It is a single-slot card, which may fit in systems where space is constrained. It has a lower TDP of 62 W versus 75 W, and it has a suggested PSU of 250 W, making it easier to integrate into older or lower-wattage systems. Its PCIe 2.0 interface is backward compatible with older motherboards. For legacy applications that only require OpenGL 4.6 or DirectX 11-level features, the Quadro 2000 can still function, but it will struggle with any modern compute load.

The M3000M is the pick for users who need performance. The Quadro 2000 is the pick only for those with strict power, space, or interface constraints that the M3000M cannot satisfy. The benchmark data does not support any other conclusion.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Fermi |

| Chip | GM204 | GF106 |

| 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 | 823 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 924 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective | 650 MHz, 2.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1,024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,024 | 192 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.57 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 59.14 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.892 TFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 62 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | Not listed |

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

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2010-12-23 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | Quadro Kepler |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |

The specification table highlights the generational leap. The M3000M is newer, denser, faster, and more capable across every compute and memory metric. The Quadro 2000's only advantages are its lower TDP, single-slot design, and explicit display outputs. For the vast majority of use cases, the M3000M's advantages far outweigh those factors.