NVIDIA Quadro 2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are two professional mobile and desktop graphics solutions built on the same Fermi architecture and GF106 chip. While they share a common foundation, the benchmark data reveals a clear performance gap driven by differences in memory technology and clock speeds. The Quadro 2000D emerges as the stronger performer in the single available benchmark, but both cards occupy a similar tier within the broader GPU landscape, as indicated by their close percentile rankings.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available for these two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The Quadro 2000D scores 3930, while the Quadro 2000M scores 3434. This represents a delta of -12.6% for the 2000M, meaning the 2000D is approximately 12.6% faster in this compute-oriented workload. This is a significant margin for two cards that share the same chip, transistor count, die size, shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. The difference is almost entirely attributable to the memory subsystem and clock rates, which will be explored in the Architecture section.

Looking at the broader competitive context, the Quadro 2000D's score of 3930 places it just 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919), 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953), 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956), and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957). These are extremely tight margins, indicating that the 2000D is positioned right at the edge of a performance cluster where small architectural or driver differences can flip the ranking. In contrast, the Quadro 2000M's score of 3434 places it 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431) and 1.3% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389), but it trails the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528) by 2.7% and the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) by 3.1%. The 2000M's competition is notably weaker, yet it still falls behind the 920MX, suggesting that its lower memory bandwidth is a tangible bottleneck.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: the 2000D wins the head-to-head matchup and also sits in a higher performance tier relative to its nearest rivals. The 2000M, while functional, is held back by its slower memory, resulting in a score that is closer to integrated graphics solutions from Intel than to the 2000D's discrete GPU competitors. For compute tasks that rely on OpenCL, the 2000D is the unequivocal choice based on this benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 3930, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M's 3434. This is a 12.6% difference in favor of the 2000D.

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

A: The Quadro 2000D is nearly identical in performance to the Quadro K2000D, scoring 0.3% higher. The Quadro 2000M is also closely matched with the GeForce GT 740, scoring just 0.1% higher, but it trails the GeForce 920MX by 2.7%.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The Quadro 2000M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, running at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), yielding 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards have the same core configuration?

A: Yes, both cards feature 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). They are built on the same GF106 chip with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die.

Q: What is the form factor and interface for each card?

A: The Quadro 2000M is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, making it suitable for laptops. The Quadro 2000D is a Single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W. The 2000D also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the 2000M has no suggested PSU listed.

Architecture Differences

Despite sharing the same fundamental architecture, the two cards diverge significantly in their memory subsystems and physical design. Both are built on the Fermi architecture using the GF106 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 4.9M / mm². The core configuration is also the same: 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the raw compute capability per clock is identical.

The first major difference lies in memory. The Quadro 2000M is equipped with 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus. The memory clock is 900 MHz, translating to 1800 Mbps effective, which results in a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro 2000D, conversely, uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus. Its memory clock is 650 MHz, but due to the nature of GDDR5, the effective data rate is 2.6 Gbps. This yields a substantially higher bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. This 44% increase in bandwidth (from 28.80 to 41.60 GB/s) is the primary reason for the 2000D's superior benchmark performance.

The second difference is in the physical implementation. The 2000M is a mobile part, packaged as an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. It has no power connectors and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are determined by the laptop manufacturer. The 2000D is a desktop card, a Single-slot design measuring 178 mm (7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. It uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, has no power connectors, and provides 2x DVI display outputs. The 2000D also has a slightly higher TDP of 62 W compared to the 2000M's 55 W, reflecting the higher memory clock and desktop cooling assumptions. The 2000D also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, a detail not provided for the 2000M.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The 2000M was released on 2011-01-12, while the 2000D came later on 2011-10-04. Both are end-of-life products, with the 2000M succeeding the Quadro FX Mobile and preceding the Quadro Kepler-M, while the 2000D succeeds the Quadro FX Tesla and precedes the Quadro Kepler.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is the superior card. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark available with a score of 3930 versus the 2000M's 3434, a 12.6% advantage. Its percentile ranking of 23 versus the 2000M's 21 also confirms that it sits higher in the overall GPU performance distribution. The 2000D's nearest rivals are all within 0.7% of its score, indicating it is competitive with a range of mid-range mobile and desktop parts from the same era. The 2000M, in contrast, is more closely matched with lower-tier integrated graphics and older discrete GPUs, and it trails the GeForce 920MX.

For any workload that leverages OpenCL compute, the 2000D is the clear winner. The 2000M's only advantages are its lower TDP (55 W vs 62 W) and larger memory capacity (2 GB vs 1024 MB), but the benchmark shows that the 2000D's faster GDDR5 memory more than compensates for its smaller frame buffer in compute tasks. The 2000D also offers a more conventional desktop form factor with PCIe 2.0 x16 and 2x DVI outputs, making it easier to integrate into a standard workstation. The 2000M's MXM form factor limits it to specific laptop chassis, which may be relevant if portability is a requirement, but the performance penalty is substantial.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specifications where the two cards differ:

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 2000M | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D |

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

| Generation | Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) | Quadro Fermi (x000) |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 4.400 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.60 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 422.4 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 62 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI |

| Dimensions | N/A | 178 mm (7 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2011-01-12 | 2011-10-04 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 599 USD |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Mobile | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler-M | Quadro Kepler |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D wins in the only benchmark category tested, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 3930 versus 3434. This suggests it is the better choice for general-purpose compute workloads, including tasks like rendering, simulation, or any application that offloads work to the GPU via OpenCL. Its higher FP32 performance (480.0 GFLOPS vs 422.4 GFLOPS), pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s), and texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s vs 17.60 GTexel/s) all point to a faster card across the board. The 2000D's higher memory bandwidth (41.60 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s) is also critical for memory-bound tasks, and its position among its nearest rivals (all within 0.7%) shows it is a solid performer in its tier.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M's wins are more subtle and derive from its mobile-oriented design. It has a lower TDP of 55 W, which is beneficial for thermal and power-constrained environments like laptops. It also offers 2 GB of DDR3 memory, which is double the capacity of the 2000D's 1024 MB. In scenarios where memory capacity is more important than bandwidth — for example, holding larger datasets that are accessed sequentially — the 2000M could potentially handle larger workloads, though the 2000D will process them faster. The 2000M's MXM form factor also makes it the only choice for specific portable workstations that require a modular GPU. However, in terms of raw performance, the data is unambiguous: the 2000M does not win any benchmark comparison against the 2000D. Its 0 wins against 1 win for the 2000D confirms this. The 2000M is best suited for legacy mobile systems where low power and a specific form factor are mandatory, and where the 12.6% performance deficit is acceptable.