NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs NVIDIA Tesla M4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct benchmark comparison between these two Maxwell-based NVIDIA cards, and it is a decisive result. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Tesla M4 scores 16,932, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14,588. That gives the Tesla M4 a 16.1% advantage, making it the clear winner in the only head-to-head measurement available. The Tesla M4 also holds a single benchmark win in the comparison, while the Quadro M2000 has none.

Context from the nearest rivals helps frame this gap. The Tesla M4 sits at the 60th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score that matches its OpenCL result. Its closest competitors are the AMD Radeon HD 7970M at 17,019 (0.5% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 at 17,037 (0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA T400 4 GB at 16,792 (0.8% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT at 17,083 (0.9% behind). The Tesla M4's performance is tightly clustered within a 1% band around these rivals, showing it delivers compute throughput comparable to a range of more recent and more power-hungry parts.

The Quadro M2000, meanwhile, lands at the 56th percentile, with an average score of 14,532 across its two recorded benchmarks: 14,588 in OpenCL and 14,475 in Vulkan. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M at 14,404 (0.9% ahead of the Quadro), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 at 14,385 (1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN at 14,373 (1.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT at 14,692 (1.1% behind). This places the Quadro M2000 in a slightly lower performance tier than the Tesla M4, roughly 16% behind in raw compute throughput.

The practical interpretation is straightforward: for compute-heavy workloads that rely on OpenCL, the Tesla M4 is the stronger card. The 16.1% delta is meaningful and consistent with the architectural differences between the two, which are detailed below. The Quadro M2000's Vulkan score of 14,475 is not directly comparable to the Tesla M4 since the database does not record a Vulkan result for the Tesla, but it does suggest the Quadro is not dramatically better in one API over the other.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in the recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M4 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 16,932 versus the Quadro M2000's 14,588, a 16.1% advantage.

Q: How does the Tesla M4 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Tesla M4 is within 1% of all four nearest rivals in the database: it is 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7970M, 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690, 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA T400 4 GB, and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT.

Q: What is the Quadro M2000's position relative to its competitors?

A: The Quadro M2000 sits slightly ahead of three rivals and behind one: it is 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN, and 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000 have any benchmark results in addition to OpenCL?

A: Yes, the database records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 14,475 for the Quadro M2000. No Vulkan result is recorded for the Tesla M4.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for these two cards?

A: The Tesla M4 ranks at the 60th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro M2000 ranks at the 56th percentile.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each card have in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Tesla M4 has 1 win, and the Quadro M2000 has 0 wins.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same fundamental architecture: NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0, using the GM206 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both share identical transistor counts of 2,940 million and the same die size of 228 mm², resulting in the same transistor density of 12.9M per mm². The architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 on both cards, and neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

The key architectural divergence lies in the execution resources. The Tesla M4 packs 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro M2000 scales down to 768 shading units and 48 TMUs, while retaining the same 32 ROPs. This difference in compute units directly explains the Tesla M4's higher peak floating-point performance: 2.195 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1.786 TFLOPS for the Quadro M2000. The texture rate tells a similar story, with the Tesla M4 achieving 68.61 GTexel/s compared to 55.82 GTexel/s for the Quadro.

Despite having fewer shading units, the Quadro M2000 achieves a slightly higher pixel rate: 37.22 GPixel/s versus 34.30 GPixel/s for the Tesla M4. This is because pixel rate depends on clock speed and ROP count, and the Quadro M2000 has a higher boost clock, as detailed in the specification differences below. The memory subsystem also differs in effective speed, with the Quadro M2000 using faster memory clocks, which contributes to its higher bandwidth.

The two cards also belong to different product generations within NVIDIA's lineup. The Tesla M4 is part of the "Tesla Maxwell (Mxx)" generation, replacing Tesla Kepler and succeeded by Tesla Pascal. The Quadro M2000 belongs to the "Quadro Maxwell (Mx000)" generation, replacing Quadro Kepler and succeeded by Quadro Pascal. Both are marked as end-of-life products in the database.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, based solely on recorded data:

• Base clock: Tesla M4 at 872 MHz, Quadro M2000 at 796 MHz.
• Boost clock: Tesla M4 at 1072 MHz, Quadro M2000 at 1163 MHz.
• Memory clock: Tesla M4 at 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective), Quadro M2000 at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective).
• Memory bandwidth: Tesla M4 at 88.00 GB/s, Quadro M2000 at 105.8 GB/s.
• Shading units: Tesla M4 has 1024, Quadro M2000 has 768.
• Texture mapping units: Tesla M4 has 64, Quadro M2000 has 48.
• Pixel rate: Tesla M4 at 34.30 GPixel/s, Quadro M2000 at 37.22 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: Tesla M4 at 68.61 GTexel/s, Quadro M2000 at 55.82 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: Tesla M4 at 2.195 TFLOPS, Quadro M2000 at 1.786 TFLOPS.
• TDP: Tesla M4 at 50 W, Quadro M2000 at 75 W.
• Power connectors: Tesla M4 has none listed, Quadro M2000 explicitly has none.
• Display outputs: Tesla M4 has no outputs, Quadro M2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2.
• Dimensions: Tesla M4 has no listed dimensions, Quadro M2000 measures 201 mm (7.9 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height.
• Release date: Tesla M4 released November 9, 2015, Quadro M2000 released April 7, 2016.

Both cards share the same 4 GB GDDR5 memory size, 128-bit bus width, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, single-slot form factor, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla M4 is the clear winner for compute throughput. Its 16.1% lead in OpenCL performance, higher FP32 rating (2.195 TFLOPS versus 1.786 TFLOPS), and greater number of shading units and TMUs make it the better choice for raw number-crunching workloads such as general-purpose GPU compute, machine learning inference, or scientific simulation that leverage OpenCL. The higher texture rate of 68.61 GTexel/s also suggests an advantage in texture-heavy compute tasks. Its lower TDP of 50 W, compared to 75 W for the Quadro, means it delivers this performance at a lower power cost, which can be critical in dense server installations where thermal and power budgets are tight.

The Quadro M2000 wins in several specific areas. Its higher memory bandwidth of 105.8 GB/s, driven by faster memory clocks at 6.6 Gbps effective, gives it an edge in memory-bound workloads that are sensitive to data throughput rather than raw compute. Its higher pixel rate of 37.22 GPixel/s, despite fewer shading units, indicates better fill-rate performance, which can matter in certain rendering or post-processing pipelines. The presence of 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs is a decisive practical advantage: the Tesla M4 has no display outputs at all, meaning the Quadro M2000 is the only one of the two that can drive a monitor directly. For professional workstation use that requires visual output, the Quadro M2000 is the functional choice.

The release timeline also factors into a use-case split. The Tesla M4 launched in November 2015, while the Quadro M2000 arrived in April 2016. The Quadro's later launch and its higher boost clock of 1163 MHz, compared to 1072 MHz on the Tesla, suggest NVIDIA tuned the Quadro for burst performance in workstation scenarios. The Tesla M4, with its higher base clock of 872 MHz and lower TDP, appears designed for sustained compute in accelerator roles.

In summary, the data points to a clear division of labor. The Tesla M4 is the compute specialist: higher FP32, more shading units, better OpenCL score, and lower power draw. The Quadro M2000 is the display-capable workstation card: faster memory, higher pixel throughput, and the only one with video outputs. For a compute server without display needs, the Tesla M4 wins. For a desktop workstation requiring both GPU acceleration and monitor connectivity, the Quadro M2000 is the practical pick.