NVIDIA Quadro 2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are both professional-grade Fermi architecture GPUs, but they target different segments: a desktop workstation card versus a mobile module. The benchmark data shows a clear, if narrow, overall winner, but the underlying specifications reveal a more nuanced story about where each card excels. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and use-case implications based solely on the provided data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, provides a direct comparison. The Quadro 2000D scores 3930, while the Quadro 3000M scores 3718. This gives the Quadro 2000D a 5.7% lead in raw compute performance. The deltaPct is significant enough to be a clear victory, but it is not a landslide. In the context of their respective nearest rivals, both cards are tightly clustered in performance. The Quadro 2000D is only 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M. Similarly, the Quadro 3000M is exactly tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (0% deltaPct) and just 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 825M. This suggests that while the 2000D wins the head-to-head, both are entry-to-mid-level performers in the broader GPU landscape, sitting at the 23rd and 22nd percentiles of all GPUs, respectively.

The 5.7% deltaPct is a curious data point because it contradicts what one might expect from the silicon specifications. The Quadro 3000M has a larger die, more memory bandwidth, and more shading units. Yet, the measured compute output favors the desktop card. This indicates that the 2000D’s advantage likely comes from its higher clock speeds or more efficient utilization of its smaller configuration. The data does not lie: the 2000D delivers more OpenCL compute per benchmark iteration. For tasks that rely purely on this metric, the 2000D is the undisputed winner, holding all 1 of the wins in the head-to-head comparison. The 3000M, with 0 wins, must find its strengths in other areas not captured by this single test.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Fermi architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process node. The similarities end there, as the underlying chips are distinctly different. The Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip, a smaller and more power-efficient design. In contrast, the Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip, which is a substantially larger and more complex processor. This is reflected in the transistor counts: the GF106 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, while the GF104 packs 1,950 million transistors onto a 332 mm² die. The transistor density also differs, with the 3000M’s chip being denser at 5.9M / mm² compared to 4.9M / mm² for the 2000D.

This architectural disparity leads to a fascinating inversion of specifications. The larger GF104 chip in the Quadro 3000M is configured with more execution resources: 240 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 2000D’s GF106 is cut down to 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. However, the 2000D compensates with a higher memory clock. Its GDDR5 memory runs at 650 MHz (or 2.6 Gbps effective), while the 3000M’s memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). This higher clock speed is what likely allows the 2000D to achieve its superior pixel and texture rates: 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s respectively, versus 4.500 GPixel/s and 18.00 GTexel/s for the 3000M. Even the FP32 compute rating is higher on the 2000D at 480.0 GFLOPS compared to 432.0 GFLOPS. The data suggests the 3000M’s extra hardware is not being fully utilized in the benchmark, possibly due to power or thermal constraints inherent in a mobile design.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate the Quadro 2000D is the performance leader in raw compute and fill-rate metrics. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 5.7%. Furthermore, its higher pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s) and texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s) suggest it would handle tasks like basic 3D rendering and pixel-heavy workloads more efficiently than the 3000M. Its desktop form factor, being a single-slot card with a 178 mm length, makes it suitable for a standard workstation chassis. The 2000D is the pick for users who need maximum compute and fill-rate performance from this specific pairing.

The Quadro 3000M’s wins are not in raw speed but in capacity and capability. It offers double the memory (2 GB versus 1024 MB) and a wider memory bus (256 bit versus 128 bit), resulting in significantly higher memory bandwidth: 80.00 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s. This is a massive 92.3% advantage in bandwidth. This makes the 3000M the better choice for workloads that are memory-bound, such as large texture datasets, complex 3D scenes, or compute tasks that require frequent data access. Its MXM-B (3.0) interface and mobile form factor indicate it is designed to be integrated into a laptop, offering professional Quadro features in a portable environment. It also has more shading units (240) and ROPs (32), which could theoretically provide more raw geometric or pixel processing power if the memory bottleneck were removed.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every major specification field, reflecting their distinct design goals.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D | NVIDIA Quadro 3000M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | GF106 | GF104 |

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

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 4.9M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 41.60 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 240 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.000 GPixel/s | 4.500 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.00 GTexel/s | 18.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 480.0 GFLOPS | 432.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 62 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | N/A |

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

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

| Dimensions | 178 mm (7 inches) long | N/A |

| Release Date | 2011-10-04 | 2011-02-21 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Tesla | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | N/A |

The table highlights the fundamental divergence: the 2000D is a compact, desktop-oriented card with higher clock-driven performance, while the 3000M is a larger, mobile-oriented module with a focus on memory capacity and bandwidth. The 2000D is the only one with a defined launch MSRP of 599 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D achieves a score of 3930, which is 5.7% higher than the Quadro 3000M’s score of 3718.

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

A: Yes. The Quadro 3000M has a memory bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s due to its 256 bit bus, which is nearly double the 41.60 GB/s of the Quadro 2000D’s 128 bit bus.

Q: What are the differences in raw compute specifications (FP32)?

A: The Quadro 2000D is rated for 480.0 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 3000M is rated lower at 432.0 GFLOPS. This is despite the 3000M having more shading units (240 vs 192).

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

A: The Quadro 2000D is 0.3% faster than the Quadro K2000D, while the Quadro 3000M is exactly tied (0% delta) with the GeForce GT 740M.

Q: Which GPU has a larger memory capacity?

A: The Quadro 3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is double the 1024 MB found on the Quadro 2000D.

Q: Are there any differences in API support?

A: No. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Neither lists Vulkan support.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload and platform. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is the superior choice for applications that demand maximum compute throughput and fill rates. Its higher FP32 rating (480.0 GFLOPS), pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s), and texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s) are the decisive factors. It also holds the benchmark win, with a 5.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. This makes it the better option for pure number-crunching or tasks that are not heavily dependent on memory bandwidth. It is a desktop card, so it is meant for a workstation with a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot. Its single-slot design and 62 W TDP make it an easy addition to a system with a 250 W suggested PSU.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is the better choice for a mobile workstation or for workloads that are constrained by memory. Its enormous bandwidth advantage (80.00 GB/s vs 41.60 GB/s) is its primary selling point. For professionals working with large textures or datasets that exceed the 2000D’s 1024 MB memory, the 3000M’s 2 GB capacity will be critical. It is also a more capable processor on paper, with 240 shading units and 32 ROPs, but the benchmark data shows it is unable to translate that into a performance win, likely due to its lower clocks and mobile power envelope. Users should pick the 3000M when portability and memory capacity are non-negotiable, and the 2000D when raw compute performance is the sole priority.