NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA T400 4 GB leads with an average benchmark score of 16792, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14532. This places the T400 at the 60th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Quadro M2000's 56th percentile.

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

A: The T400 4 GB scores 17320 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 18.7% ahead of the Quadro M2000's 14588. This is the largest single benchmark delta between the two cards.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000 win any head-to-head benchmark comparison?

A: No, the recorded head-to-head data shows the T400 4 GB winning both tests. The T400 claims 2 wins, while the Quadro M2000 has 0 wins in the direct comparison.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of memory. The T400 4 GB uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M2000 uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 105.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of power requirements?

A: The T400 4 GB has a TDP of 30 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Quadro M2000 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Neither card requires external power connectors.

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

A: The T400 4 GB, built on a 12 nm process, has a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The Quadro M2000, built on a 28 nm process, has a transistor density of 12.9M per mm².

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA T400 4 GB is the faster card in every recorded measurement. Its average benchmark score of 16792 is 15.5% higher than the Quadro M2000's 14532. The T400 wins both head-to-head tests, with an 18.7% margin in OpenCL and a 12.4% margin in Vulkan. For any workload that relies on compute throughput or API-accelerated rendering, the T400 4 GB is the superior choice.

The Quadro M2000, despite its older architecture, retains advantages in raw memory bandwidth and pixel throughput. Its 105.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is 32% higher than the T400's 80.00 GB/s, and its 37.22 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the T400's 22.80 GPixel/s by 63%. This makes the M2000 the better option for tasks that are heavily bandwidth-bound or require high fill rates, such as certain 2D compositing or multisampled rendering scenarios.

However, the T400's architectural efficiency cannot be overstated. It delivers higher compute performance at a 60% lower TDP (30 W vs 75 W), making it the clear pick for low-power or densely populated systems. The T400 also offers a newer display output standard with three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, compared to the M2000's four DisplayPort 1.2 connectors. Users needing the latest display connectivity or who prioritize compute performance should choose the T400 4 GB. Users with legacy display requirements or who need maximum memory bandwidth per dollar spent on power draw should consider the Quadro M2000.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the NVIDIA T400 4 GB. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the T400 scores 17320 against the Quadro M2000's 14588. This represents an 18.7% advantage, the largest margin in any direct comparison. The T400's FP32 throughput of 1,094.4 GFLOPS, combined with its Turing architecture's improved scheduling, explains this substantial lead in general-purpose compute tasks.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story. The T400 scores 16263, while the Quadro M2000 manages 14475. The 12.4% delta indicates that the T400's newer architecture handles modern graphics APIs more efficiently. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not a differentiator. The performance difference must stem from architectural efficiency: the T400's Turing design with 384 shading units outperforms the Maxwell 2.0 design with 768 shading units in these tests.

The T400's average benchmark score of 16792 places it close to several notable rivals. It sits 0.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 7600S (16696), 0.8% below the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16932), and 1.4% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17037). The Quadro M2000's average of 14532 places it 0.9% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14404) and 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14373), but 1.1% below the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14692). These contextual comparisons show that the T400 competes in a higher performance tier than the M2000, despite the M2000's wider memory bus.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The T400 4 GB uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm process, while the Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip on a 28 nm process. Both come from TSMC, but the 12 nm node allows the T400 to pack 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 23.5M transistors per mm². The M2000 contains 2,940 million transistors on a larger 228 mm² die, yielding only 12.9M transistors per mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly. The T400 has a base clock of 420 MHz and a boost clock of 1425 MHz. The M2000 has a higher base clock of 796 MHz but a lower boost clock of 1163 MHz. Memory clocks also diverge: the T400 runs at 1250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed, while the M2000 runs at 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective speed.

The memory subsystem presents a trade-off. The T400 uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M2000 uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 105.8 GB/s bandwidth. The M2000's 128-bit bus provides 33% more bandwidth despite the older memory technology.

Compute resources are starkly different. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The M2000 doubles these counts with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having half the shading units, the T400 achieves higher benchmark scores, indicating superior per-core efficiency.

Power consumption heavily favors the T400. Its TDP is 30 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the M2000 draws 75 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, but the T400's lower power draw makes it suitable for more constrained environments.

Physical dimensions differ as well. The M2000 measures 201 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The T400's dimensions are not recorded in the database. Display outputs are also different: the T400 offers three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the M2000 offers four DisplayPort 1.2 connectors.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB is built on the Turing architecture, specifically the TU117 chip, belonging to the Quadro Turing generation (Tx000). The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM206 chip, part of the Quadro Maxwell generation (Mx000). This generational leap represents a significant architectural evolution.

The process node is the most fundamental difference. The T400 uses a 12 nm process from TSMC, while the M2000 uses a 28 nm process from the same foundry. This 16 nm reduction in process size allows the T400 to achieve a transistor density of 23.5M per mm², nearly double the M2000's 12.9M per mm². The T400 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, whereas the M2000 fits 2,940 million transistors into a larger 228 mm² die.

The T400's Turing architecture introduces several efficiency improvements over Maxwell 2.0. Although neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, the Turing design's scheduling and execution logic is more efficient per shading unit. This is evident in the fact that the T400 achieves higher benchmark scores with 384 shading units compared to the M2000's 768 shading units. The T400's FP32 throughput is 1,094.4 GFLOPS, while the M2000 reaches 1.786 TFLOPS, yet the T400 still wins in OpenCL and Vulkan tests, suggesting that raw FP32 is not the sole determinant of real-world performance.

The T400 also supports FP16 computation at 2.189 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The M2000 has no recorded FP16 capability, making the T400 the only card in this comparison with half-precision compute support. This can be beneficial in AI inference or certain scientific workloads that leverage FP16 arithmetic.

Memory technology differs by generation. The T400 uses GDDR6 with a 10 Gbps effective data rate, while the M2000 uses GDDR5 with a 6.6 Gbps effective data rate. Despite this, the M2000's wider 128-bit bus provides higher total bandwidth. The T400's narrower 64-bit bus limits its bandwidth to 80.00 GB/s, which is a notable bottleneck for memory-intensive tasks.

Display connectivity also reflects architectural generational differences. The T400 supports DisplayPort 1.4a, while the M2000 supports DisplayPort 1.2. The newer DisplayPort standard enables higher resolutions and refresh rates on compatible monitors.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA T400 4 GB wins in compute-heavy and modern-API workloads. The data shows an 18.7% lead in OpenCL and a 12.4% lead in Vulkan. This makes it the preferred choice for general-purpose GPU computing, rendering tasks that leverage OpenCL, and applications built on modern Vulkan pipelines. The T400's higher average benchmark score of 16792 compared to 14532 cements its position as the overall performance leader. Its 30 W TDP also makes it the clear winner for power-constrained systems, multi-GPU configurations, or any deployment where thermal headroom is limited. The three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs offer newer display standard support, which matters for users with 4K or high-refresh-rate monitors.

NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins in bandwidth-sensitive and fill-rate-limited scenarios. Its 105.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is 32% higher than the T400's 80.00 GB/s, making it the better option for workloads that stream large datasets through memory. The M2000's 37.22 GPixel/s pixel rate is 63% higher than the T400's 22.80 GPixel/s, which benefits tasks like high-resolution compositing, heavy multisampling, or 2D texture-heavy environments. The M2000 also offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs instead of three, providing an extra display connection for multi-monitor setups. Its 75 W TDP, while higher than the T400's 30 W, is still modest and requires no external power connector.

The verdict splits by use case. For users running modern compute frameworks, Vulkan-based applications, or who value power efficiency and newer display outputs, the T400 4 GB is the definitive choice. For users with legacy DisplayPort 1.2 infrastructure, or whose workloads are dominated by memory bandwidth and pixel fill rates, the Quadro M2000 retains a niche advantage. The benchmark data, however, consistently favors the T400 in overall performance, with a 15.5% higher average score and a clean sweep of all head-to-head comparisons.