GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P600 is the superior workstation GPU in nearly every measurable way. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the P600 delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,181 against the Quadro 2000M's 3,434, a 69.3% margin that places the two cards in entirely different performance tiers. The Quadro 2000M, a 2011-era Fermi part, is firmly at the end of its life, with a 21st percentile ranking among all GPUs. The P600, despite its own end-of-life status, still posts a 19th percentile ranking, but its raw compute and feature set make it the obvious choice for anyone running modern OpenCL workloads or needing Vulkan support.

Who should pick which? From the data, the P600 is the only rational choice for professional visualization tasks that leverage current APIs. It offers a 14 nm Samsung process node versus the 2000M's 40 nm TSMC node, a 2.8x higher FP32 throughput, and more than double the memory bandwidth. The Quadro 2000M should only be considered by someone maintaining legacy systems with MXM-A slots and no requirement for modern API support, and even then, its 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and 422.4 GFLOPS FP32 are severely dated. The P600's nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB and RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF, both within 0.3–0.4% of its average benchmark score of 2,923, which contextualizes the P600 as a surprisingly resilient performer despite its age.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two Quadro generations is vast. The Quadro 2000M is built on the GF106 chip, a Fermi design fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². The P600 uses the GP107 chip under the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It contains 3,300 million transistors in just 132 mm², achieving 25.0M transistors per mm², a density five times higher than the older card.

The memory subsystems tell a similar story. Both cards have 2 GB of VRAM and a 128-bit bus, but the 2000M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective), producing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The P600 uses GDDR5 at 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), more than doubling bandwidth to 64.13 GB/s. This alone explains a significant portion of the performance delta in memory-intensive workloads.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The 2000M offers 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 ROPs. The P600 doubles the shading units to 384 but reduces TMUs to 24 while keeping 16 ROPs. The result is a massive difference in throughput: the 2000M achieves 4.400 GPixel/s and 17.60 GTexel/s, while the P600 hits 24.91 GPixel/s and 37.37 GTexel/s. FP32 performance jumps from 422.4 GFLOPS to 1,195.8 GFLOPS, a 2.8x improvement. The P600 also lists FP16 capability at 18.68 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), which the 2000M lacks entirely.

API support is another decisive differentiator. The 2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and has no Vulkan entry. The P600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. For any modern application leveraging Vulkan, the 2000M is outright disqualified. The P600 also has a base clock of 1,329 MHz and boost clock of 1,557 MHz, whereas the 2000M lists no base or boost clocks at all, only memory clock, suggesting a far less flexible and lower-frequency design.

Physical and power characteristics also differ. The 2000M is an MXM Module with a 55 W TDP and no power connectors, using an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. The P600 is a single-slot card measuring 150 mm (5.9 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, with a 40 W TDP and a suggested 200 W PSU. The P600 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and outputs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The 2000M's display outputs are described as "portable device dependent," reflecting its laptop-oriented MXM form factor.

Where Each One Wins

The P600 wins in every benchmark category where data exists. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,181 dwarfs the 2000M's 3,434. In the Passmark suite, the P600 posts scores across multiple API tests: 14 in DirectX 10, 24 in DirectX 11, 14 in DirectX 12, 56 in DirectX 9, 529 in G2D, 3,317 in G3D, and 1,415 in GPU compute. The 2000M has no corresponding Passmark entries in the fact pack, so direct comparison is impossible there, but the OpenCL result alone establishes a clear hierarchy.

The 2000M's only "win" is in transistor count efficiency relative to die size, but that's an architectural metric, not a performance one. Its 1,170 million transistors on a larger 238 mm² die represent a less dense, less efficient design. In terms of raw benchmark wins, the head-to-head table shows the P600 winning 1 out of 1 tests, with the 2000M winning 0. The deltaPct of -69.3% indicates the 2000M trails by that margin in the one shared test.

For use-case segmentation: the P600 is suitable for modern compute tasks, Vulkan-based applications, and any workload that benefits from GDDR5 bandwidth or 1.2 TFLOPS of FP32. The 2000M is relegated to legacy MXM-based mobile workstations where the slot form factor is a hard constraint and the software stack does not require Vulkan or full DirectX 12_1 support. The P600's 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also make it far more practical for multi-monitor professional setups than the 2000M's portable-device-dependent outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The P600 scores 11,181 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 3,434 for the 2000M, a 69.3% advantage for the P600.

Q: Do both cards support Vulkan?

A: No. The P600 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the 2000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The 2000M has 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The P600 has 64.13 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures?

A: The 2000M delivers 422.4 GFLOPS, while the P600 delivers 1,195.8 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The 2000M is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the P600 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 150 mm by 69 mm.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The P600 has a 40 W TDP, compared to the 2000M's 55 W TDP. Both require no power connectors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the fact pack is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is decisive. The P600 scores 11,181, while the 2000M scores 3,434. The deltaPct of -69.3% means the 2000M performs at roughly 30.7% of the P600's level in this test. This is a massive gap that cannot be explained by any single factor, it's the cumulative result of a 14 nm process versus 40 nm, GDDR5 versus DDR3, double the shading units, and nearly three times the FP32 throughput.

The P600's average benchmark score of 2,923 places it among rivals like the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (2,913, +0.3% delta), the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF (2,910, +0.4%), the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB (2,907, +0.6%), and the GeForce RTX 4010 (2,893, +1%). This is remarkable context: a 2017 Pascal card sits within 1% of modern Blackwell and Ada Lovelace workstation parts in average benchmark score. The 2000M's average of 3,434 places it near the GeForce GT 740 (3,431, +0.1%), Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3,389, +1.3%), GeForce 920MX (3,528, -2.7%), and Intel HD Graphics 530 (3,332, +3.1%). This puts the 2000M in the company of integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs from a decade ago.

In the broader benchmark suite that only the P600 has data for, its Passmark scores show a peculiar pattern: DirectX 9 (56) vastly outperforms DirectX 10 (14), 11 (24), and 12 (14), while G3D (3,317) and GPU compute (1,415) are comparatively strong. This suggests the P600's legacy DX9 path is well-optimized, while its modern API performance is more modest. The G2D score of 529 indicates competent 2D desktop acceleration. None of these tests exist for the 2000M, so the P600's superiority in these categories is assumed from the OpenCL result rather than directly measured.

Pixel and texture rates reinforce the P600's dominance. The P600's 24.91 GPixel/s is 5.7 times the 2000M's 4.400 GPixel/s. Texture rate for the P600 is 37.37 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s, a 2.1x advantage. These metrics directly impact rasterization-heavy workloads like CAD viewport rendering, where the P600's higher ROP throughput paired with 384 shading units will produce noticeably smoother interaction.

The memory clock difference is also stark: the 2000M runs at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective), while the P600 runs at 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Combined with the DDR3-to-GDDR5 transition, this yields the 2.2x bandwidth advantage noted earlier. For OpenCL workloads that stream data through VRAM, common in image processing and scientific compute, this bandwidth gap is often as impactful as raw compute throughput.

In summary, the head-to-head data tells a straightforward story: the P600 is a generationally superior product. Its only weaknesses are a smaller die size (132 mm² versus 238 mm²) and fewer TMUs (24 versus 32), but neither translates into any benchmark defeat. The 2000M is a relic of the Fermi era, functionally obsolete for modern compute tasks, while the P600, despite being end-of-life, remains competitive enough to sit alongside much newer hardware in average benchmark rankings.