NVIDIA Quadro 2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a strikingly one-sided comparison. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a margin of 323.6%, a result that aligns with the broader performance profile of the two cards. The M3000M is positioned firmly as the high-performance mobile workstation part, while the Quadro 2000D appears as an older, entry-level desktop solution. For compute-heavy workloads, specifically OpenCL acceleration, the choice is unambiguous based on the numbers.

The Quadro M3000M is the clear winner for any task that leverages general-purpose GPU compute. Its OpenCL score of 16646 dwarfs the 3930 recorded by the Quadro 2000D. This suggests a massive advantage in applications that offload parallel processing to the GPU, such as rendering, simulation, and data analysis. The M3000M also holds a significant edge in its percentile ranking, sitting at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 2000D's 23rd percentile. While both are in the lower half of the performance distribution, the M3000M is notably higher.

The Quadro 2000D, by contrast, has no benchmark wins in the direct comparison. Its only recorded score is the Geekbench OpenCL result, where it is thoroughly outperformed. The data does not suggest any workload category where the 2000D comes out ahead. Its role in a modern system is limited by its lack of support for modern APIs like Vulkan, which is listed as null in the database, and its older Fermi architecture. The M3000M supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 2000D only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support, making the newer card the only viable option for software that relies on these contemporary interfaces.

In terms of memory capacity, the M3000M also has a clear advantage. It offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is four times the 1024 MB found on the 2000D. This capacity difference is crucial for modern workloads that need to hold large datasets in video memory. The M3000M's memory bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s is also vastly superior to the 2000D's 41.60 GB/s, ensuring that data can be fed to the processing cores much faster. The conclusion is that the M3000M is the superior product in every measurable aspect available in the database.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The M3000M scores 16646, which is 323.6% higher than the Quadro 2000D's score of 3930. This represents a dominant win for the M3000M in this compute benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4621, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has an average score of 3930. The M3000M's average is significantly higher.

Q: What is the difference in their percentile rankings among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro M3000M is in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000D is in the 23rd percentile. The M3000M ranks higher, though both cards are in the lower half of the overall performance distribution.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 41.60 GB/s. The M3000M is superior in both capacity and bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: No. The Quadro M3000M supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1). The Quadro 2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) but has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two architectures?

A: The Quadro M3000M, based on the GM204 chip, contains 5,200 million transistors on a 28 nm process. The Quadro 2000D, based on the GF106 chip, contains 1,170 million transistors on a 40 nm process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M achieved a score of 16646, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D managed only 3930. The delta percentage of 323.6% in favor of the M3000M is an enormous gap, indicating that the newer card delivers more than four times the compute performance in this specific test. This is the single biggest win recorded in the comparison, and it speaks volumes about the generational leap between the two products.

The M3000M's victory is not just a narrow margin; it is a complete rout. A score of 16646 places it well ahead of not only the 2000D but also close to its own nearest rivals. The database shows that the M3000M's average score of 4621 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, which scores 4628, a delta of just -0.1%. This places the M3000M in a performance class that is entirely different from the 2000D. The 2000D, with its average score of 3930, sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, which scores 3919, a delta of 0.3%. The comparison highlights how far the M3000M's OpenCL result is an outlier on the high side, while the 2000D's overall average is much lower.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the M3000M, it shows consistent, if modest, performance across various DirectX tests. It scores 26 in Passmark DirectX 10, 42 in DirectX 11, 23 in DirectX 12, and 98 in DirectX 9. Its Passmark G2D score is 402, and its G3D score is 5543. The GPU compute score is 2139. These figures, while not directly comparable to the 2000D due to missing data, paint a picture of a card that can handle a variety of graphics tasks. The 2000D has no such scores recorded, meaning the M3000M is the only card with data points for these legacy and modern DirectX tests.

The sheer scale of the OpenCL victory, combined with the M3000M's additional benchmark data, leaves no room for doubt. In any scenario where the two cards are considered, the M3000M is the superior choice based on the recorded measurements. The 2000D simply cannot compete in compute performance, and its single recorded score being less than a quarter of the M3000M's.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category recorded in the database. The most fundamental difference is the memory configuration. The M3000M offers 4 GB of memory, operates on a 256-bit bus, and achieves 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The 2000D has 1024 MB of memory, a 128-bit bus, and 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The M3000M has four times the memory and nearly four times the bandwidth.

The processing core counts also show a significant disparity. The M3000M is equipped with 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This configuration gives the M3000M a pixel rate of 29.57 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 59.14 GTexel/s. The 2000D's rates are much lower at 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s. The compute performance, measured in FP32, is 1.892 TFLOPS for the M3000M versus 480.0 GFLOPS for the 2000D.

The physical and power characteristics are also distinct. The M3000M is an MXM Module with a TDP of 75 W and no power connectors. The 2000D is a single-slot card with a TDP of 62 W and no power connectors, but it does have a suggested PSU of 250 W. The M3000M has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the 2000D uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16. The M3000M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent", while the 2000D has 2x DVI outputs. The 2000D has physical dimensions of 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the M3000M's dimensions are not recorded.

The bus interface and memory clock speeds further separate the two. The M3000M's memory runs at 1253 MHz, translating to 5 Gbps effective. The 2000D's memory runs at 650 MHz, or 2.6 Gbps effective. The M3000M's clock speeds are listed as a base of 823 MHz and a boost of 924 MHz, while the 2000D's base and boost clocks are not recorded. Every measurable specification favors the M3000M, confirming its position as the more capable and modern part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the two GPUs is vast, representing two distinct eras of NVIDIA design. The Quadro M3000M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a die size of 398 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 13.1M / mm². The Quadro 2000D, in contrast, is based on the much older Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process also at TSMC. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a die size of 238 mm², for a transistor density of 4.9M / mm².

This generational difference has profound implications for performance and efficiency. The M3000M's Maxwell architecture is significantly more advanced, allowing for the higher transistor count and density, which directly translates to the superior benchmark scores. The 2000D's Fermi architecture is outdated, lacking the modern features and efficiency of Maxwell. The M3000M's support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the 2000D's DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan support, highlights the modern feature set of the newer card.

The production status for both is listed as end-of-life, but their release dates show their respective ages. The M3000M was released in August 2015, while the 2000D came much earlier, in October 2011. The 2000D's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler. The M3000M's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M, and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M. The M3000M represents a later stage in the M-series mobile workstation line, while the 2000D is an early desktop part. The architecture differences are not just about clock speeds or core counts; they are about fundamental design philosophy and feature support, all of which favor the newer M3000M. The M3000M's generation is listed as "Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)", while the 2000D's is "Quadro Fermi (x000)". The M3000M's overall design is simply from a more modern and capable era of GPU technology.