NVIDIA Quadro 2000M vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Quadro P1000 scores 13,584 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 2000M scores 3,434. This represents a 74.7% advantage for the P1000, making it roughly four times faster in this compute workload.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro P1000, built on Samsung's 14 nm process, packs 25.0M transistors per mm² across 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die. The Quadro 2000M's 40 nm TSMC process yields only 4.9M transistors per mm² across 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro 2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The P1000 also adds Vulkan 1.4 support, whereas the 2000M has no listed Vulkan support.

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

A: The Quadro P1000 has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, compared to the Quadro 2000M's 192 shading units and 32 TMUs. The P1000 also doubles the ROP count from 16 to 32.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Quadro P1000's GDDR5 memory delivers 80.19 GB/s, nearly three times the Quadro 2000M's 28.80 GB/s from DDR3 memory. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the P1000's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the 2000M.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro P1000 achieves 47.36 GPixel/s, which is more than ten times the Quadro 2000M's 4.400 GPixel/s. The texture rate follows a similar pattern: 59.20 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to entirely different NVIDIA architectures separated by six years of design evolution. The Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip based on the Fermi architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process. Its die measures 238 mm² and contains 1,170 million transistors. In contrast, the Quadro P1000 uses the GP107 chip based on the Pascal architecture, built on Samsung's 14 nm process, with a much smaller 132 mm² die but 3,300 million transistors—nearly triple the transistor count in nearly half the area.

The transistor density figures tell the story of process advancement: the 2000M sits at 4.9M transistors per mm², while the P1000 achieves 25.0M per mm². This density improvement enables the P1000 to pack 640 shading units versus 192 on the 2000M, 40 TMUs versus 32, and 32 ROPs versus 16. The P1000 also carries 4 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 2 GB of DDR3 on the 2000M, though both use a 128-bit memory bus.

Clock behavior differs fundamentally. The 2000M has no listed base or boost clock, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The P1000 specifies a 1266 MHz base clock, 1480 MHz boost clock, and memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). These clock and memory type differences produce the bandwidth gap: 80.19 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

The P1000 adds features the 2000M lacks entirely. It supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 2000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan entry. The P1000 also includes FP16 compute at 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature absent from the 2000M's spec sheet. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Power and physical design also separate them. The 2000M carries a 55 W TDP as an MXM Module with MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the P1000 draws 47 W as a Single-slot card with PCIe 3.0 x16 and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The P1000 measures 150 mm by 69 mm, while the 2000M has no listed dimensions. Display outputs differ too: the 2000M is "Portable Device Dependent," whereas the P1000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points decisively to the Quadro P1000 for any workload measured by Geekbench OpenCL. Its score of 13,584 dwarfs the Quadro 2000M's 3,434, a 74.7% margin that reflects the architectural gulf between Pascal and Fermi. The P1000 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, and it does so by a factor of nearly four.

However, the percentile data complicates the picture. The 2000M sits at the 21st percentile of all GPUs, while the P1000 sits at the 20th percentile. Both are near the bottom of the performance distribution, despite the P1000's absolute superiority in compute. This suggests that even the newer, faster GPU remains a modest performer by modern standards—its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc Pro B60 (3182 avg score, 0.6% slower), NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 (3210 avg score, 1.5% faster), and NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3287 avg score, 3.8% faster). The 2000M's nearest rivals cluster similarly: NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431 avg score, 0.1% slower), Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389 avg score, 1.3% slower), and Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332 avg score, 3.1% slower).

For users needing compute performance, the P1000 is the clear choice—the 74.7% OpenCL lead is overwhelming. For users constrained by power, the P1000 also wins, drawing 47 W versus 55 W. The P1000 further offers superior memory bandwidth (80.19 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s), more VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB), and modern API support including Vulkan. The 2000M's only advantages are its smaller physical footprint as an MXM module and its comparable percentile ranking, which is not a meaningful functional benefit.

The data does not support choosing the 2000M for any performance-critical task. Its 422.4 GFLOPS FP32 output versus the P1000's 1.894 TFLOPS means the P1000 delivers roughly 4.5 times the raw compute. The P1000's pixel rate of 47.36 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s further cements its dominance. If legacy MXM form factor compatibility is required, the 2000M exists; otherwise, the P1000 wins every measurable category.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Quadro 2000M | Quadro P1000 |

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

| Chip | GF106 | GP107 |

| Architecture | Fermi | Pascal |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 4.9M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 640 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.400 GPixel/s | 47.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.60 GTexel/s | 59.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 422.4 GFLOPS | 1.894 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | — | 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 55 W | 47 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | — | 200 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan | — | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2011-01-12 | 2017-02-06 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it delivers a lopsided result. The Quadro P1000 scores 13,584, while the Quadro 2000M scores 3,434. The deltaPct of -74.7% indicates the 2000M trails by that margin. This is not a marginal win—it is a generational gap made visible in compute performance.

Contextualizing the 2000M's score, it sits 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431 avg score) and 1.3% above the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389 avg score). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528 avg score) by 2.7%. These are all low-end or integrated-class GPUs, confirming that the 2000M's OpenCL performance is entry-level even by its own era's standards.

The P1000's score of 13,584 is not directly comparable to its average benchmark score of 3,163—the average includes multiple Passmark tests where scores are lower (e.g., Passmark DirectX 9 at 79, DirectX 11 at 31, G2D at 589). The Geekbench OpenCL result stands alone as the compute-oriented metric. Its nearest rivals show tight clustering: Intel Arc Pro B60 (3182 avg score, 0.6% lower), NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 (3210 avg score, 1.5% higher), and NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3287 avg score, 3.8% higher). Notably, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER appears as a rival with a 3075 avg score, which is 2.9% lower than the P1000's average—an unusual data point suggesting the average benchmark metric has limitations.

The wins tally confirms the story: the P1000 wins 1 head-to-head benchmark, the 2000M wins 0. No benchmark in the data shows the 2000M ahead. The P1000's additional benchmark suite (Passmark DirectX 10/11/12/9, G2D, G3D, GPU Compute, Vulkan) provides a broader profile, but the 2000M lacks corresponding entries for comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P1000 wins in every category where data exists. Its OpenCL score of 13,584 versus 3,434 makes it the undisputed compute winner. Its memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s means memory-bound workloads—texture streaming, large framebuffers, data-parallel kernels—will run nearly three times faster. Its FP32 output of 1.894 TFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS gives it a 4.5x raw compute advantage. Pixel rate of 47.36 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s indicates fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution rendering favor the P1000 by over ten times. Texture rate of 59.20 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s similarly favors the P1000 by over three times.

The Quadro 2000M has no benchmark wins and no specification category where it leads. Its lower TDP of 55 W versus 47 W is actually a disadvantage, not a win—the P1000 delivers more performance at lower power. The 2000M's MXM Module form factor is its only distinguishing feature, which may matter for specific laptop or embedded designs requiring that interface. Its smaller die size of 238 mm² versus 132 mm² is also not an advantage; the P1000 achieves more with less silicon area.

In practical terms, the P1000 is the pick for any task involving OpenCL compute, modern API support (Vulkan 1.4, DirectX 12_1), high-resolution display output (4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), or memory-intensive workloads. The 2000M is only relevant for legacy MXM-based systems where the P1000's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface cannot be accommodated. The data shows no scenario where the 2000M's Fermi architecture, DDR3 memory, or 192 shading units provide a functional advantage over the P1000's Pascal architecture, GDDR5 memory, or 640 shading units.