NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, though not overwhelming, advantage for the NVIDIA T400 across the two synthetic workloads in the database. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the T400 scores 17,039, while the Quadro M2000 manages 14,588. This translates to a 16.8% lead for the Turing-based card, a substantial gap that indicates a significant difference in raw compute throughput under this API. The margin is large enough to suggest that the T400 is not merely keeping pace, but actively pulling ahead in general-purpose GPU compute tasks.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, but with a narrower margin. The T400 scores 15,976, while the M2000 trails at 14,475. The delta here is 10.4%, still a comfortable victory for the newer card, but notably less pronounced than the OpenCL gap. This pattern is curious. The smaller delta in Vulkan could imply that the Maxwell architecture handles the lower-level API relatively better than it does OpenCL, or that the T400's advantage is partially dependent on the specific workload characteristics of each test. Either way, the data is unambiguous: the T400 wins both recorded head-to-head comparisons, with a total of 2 wins and 0 losses.

Context from the database's nearest rival rankings adds further texture. The T400's average benchmark score across both tests is 16,508. This places it in the 60th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2, has an average score of 16,504, a delta of 0%. This is a remarkable coincidence, indicating that despite the massive generational and performance-class differences implied by such a product name, the recorded average scores are effectively identical. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell are also within 0.6% (scores of 16,415 and 16,408 respectively), meaning the T400 sits in a very tight cluster of performance at this benchmark level.

The Quadro M2000, by contrast, has an average score of 14,532, placing it in the 56th percentile. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT, which scores 14,692, a delta of -1.1%, meaning the M2000 is slightly behind that card. It is ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14,404) and AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385) by 0.9% and 1% respectively. This positioning shows the M2000 is competitive with a specific set of older or lower-tier GPUs, but it is clearly in a different performance tier than the T400 according to these aggregate numbers.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent two distinct eras of NVIDIA GPU design. The T400 is built on the Turing architecture, specifically using the TU117 chip. This is a 12 nm process from TSMC, packing 4,700 million transistors into a die size of 200 mm². The transistor density works out to 23.5 million per square millimeter. The Quadro M2000, on the other hand, is a Maxwell 2.0 part, using the GM206 chip. It is fabricated on a larger 28 nm process, also from TSMC, and contains 2,940 million transistors on a slightly larger die of 228 mm². Its transistor density is significantly lower at 12.9 million per square millimeter. The data shows a clear generational shift in manufacturing efficiency, with the Turing part packing far more transistors into a smaller physical area.

Clock behavior also differs markedly. The T400 has a base clock of 420 MHz, which boosts up to 1,425 MHz. This is a very wide boost range. The M2000 has a higher base clock of 796 MHz, but a lower boost clock of 1,163 MHz. This suggests the T400 is designed to aggressively ramp its clock speed under load, while the M2000 runs at a more modest, steady state. The memory subsystems are also from different generations. The T400 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 64-bit bus, running at an effective 10 Gbps, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M2000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, running at an effective 6.6 Gbps, yielding 105.8 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a critical difference: the M2000 has twice the memory capacity and significantly more bandwidth, while the T400 relies on newer, faster memory technology but with a narrower interface.

Shader configuration also shifts. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The M2000 has more of everything in this regard: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the M2000 has double the raw shader count. The fill rates reflect this, with the M2000 achieving 37.22 GPixel/s and 55.82 GTexel/s, versus the T400's 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s. Yet, despite the M2000's numerical advantage in these traditional metrics, the T400 still wins the recorded benchmarks. This points to architectural efficiency improvements in Turing that allow it to do more work per shader per clock.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark wins, the T400 is the clear winner in both tested categories. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a 16.8% advantage and the Geekbench Vulkan test with a 10.4% advantage. The data does not provide any recorded test where the M2000 comes out ahead. Therefore, from a pure performance standpoint, the T400 is the superior choice for compute workloads as measured by these APIs.

However, the specification data suggests a different kind of win for the M2000 in specific use cases. Its 4 GB of memory, double the T400's 2 GB, combined with a wider 128-bit bus and higher bandwidth (105.8 GB/s vs 80.00 GB/s), makes it a more capable candidate for workloads that are memory-bound, such as holding larger textures or larger datasets in VRAM. The T400's smaller memory pool and narrower bus could be a limiting factor in such scenarios, even if its compute performance is higher. The M2000 also offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, compared to the T400's three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. For a multi-display setup requiring four simultaneous outputs, the M2000 has a physical connector advantage out of the box.

The T400 wins on power efficiency. Its 30 W TDP is less than half of the M2000's 75 W TDP. The suggested power supply rating is also lower, at 200 W versus 250 W. For a system where power draw and thermal output are primary concerns, the T400 is the more attractive option. The T400 also supports newer display output standards with DisplayPort 1.4a, which may enable higher resolutions or refresh rates over a single cable compared to the M2000's DisplayPort 1.2.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The T400 uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm process, while the M2000 uses the GM206 chip on a 28 nm process. The T400 has a transistor count of 4,700 million on a 200 mm² die, while the M2000 has 2,940 million on a 228 mm² die. The T400's base clock is 420 MHz with a boost of 1,425 MHz, while the M2000 has a base clock of 796 MHz and a boost of 1,163 MHz. Memory configurations differ significantly: the T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 105.8 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute unit counts differ, with the T400 featuring 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus the M2000's 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The T400's pixel rate is 22.80 GPixel/s and texture rate is 34.20 GTexel/s, while the M2000 achieves 37.22 GPixel/s and 55.82 GTexel/s. The T400's FP32 performance is listed at 1,094.4 GFLOPS, and it has an FP16 rating of 2.189 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The M2000 has a higher FP32 rating of 1.786 TFLOPS, with no FP16 data recorded. Power consumption is a major differentiator: the T400 has a 30 W TDP, while the M2000 has a 75 W TDP. The suggested PSU ratings are 200 W and 250 W respectively.

Display outputs also differ: the T400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the M2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The M2000 has recorded physical dimensions of 201 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the T400's dimensions are not recorded in the database. The release dates are also far apart, with the M2000 launching in April 2016 and the T400 in May 2021. Both cards are end-of-life and use the PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface. They share the same API support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and neither has RT or Tensor cores.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in the recorded Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA T400 wins with a score of 17,039, which is 16.8% higher than the Quadro M2000's score of 14,588.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The T400 scores 15,976, while the M2000 scores 14,475, giving the T400 a 10.4% lead.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000 have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is double the 2 GB of GDDR6 memory found on the T400.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two cards?

A: The T400 has a TDP of 30 W, while the M2000 has a TDP of 75 W, making the T400 the more power-efficient option.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The Quadro M2000 has a higher FP32 rating of 1.786 TFLOPS, compared to the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS.

Q: How many display outputs does each card have?

A: The T400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the M2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA T400 as the better performer in the two recorded benchmark tests. It wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, and its average benchmark score of 16,508 puts it in the 60th percentile of all GPUs, while the M2000's average of 14,532 places it in the 56th percentile. The T400 achieves this with a significantly lower TDP of 30 W versus 75 W, and it is built on a much more advanced 12 nm process. For any use case where the primary concern is raw compute performance per the database's metrics, the T400 is the clear recommendation.

However, the M2000 is not without its own merits according to the specifications. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 105.8 GB/s of bandwidth, coupled with a 128-bit bus, make it a better fit for workloads that require large memory footprints or high memory throughput. Its higher FP32 rating of 1.786 TFLOPS and greater number of shading units (768 vs 384) are also notable, even if they do not translate to wins in the recorded tests. For users with a strict need for four simultaneous display outputs, the M2000 has the physical connector advantage.

The choice ultimately comes down to what the workload prioritizes. If the priority is compute performance, power efficiency, and a more modern architecture, the T400 is the superior pick. If the priority is memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and multi-display output, the M2000, despite its age, still holds specific advantages. The T400's wins are recorded, but the M2000's specification sheet tells a story of a card that may still be relevant for niche, memory-intensive tasks. The T400 is the better all-around product based on the data, but the M2000 is not entirely obsolete.