GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data positions the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M as the clear performance leader in this comparison. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GeForce GTX 560 scores 9,058, giving the Quadro an 11% advantage. This is a decisive margin, not a marginal win, but a consistent lead across the entire benchmark suite.

For users choosing strictly from the data, the Quadro M2000M is the pick for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance and modern feature support. Its 47th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it slightly above the GTX 560's 45th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 9,832 substantially exceeds the GTX 560's 9,058 average. The Quadro also brings architectural advantages that matter for professional workloads: a newer Maxwell architecture, higher FP32 throughput, and support for Vulkan 1.4, which the GTX 560 lacks entirely.

The GeForce GTX 560, however, is not without its own merits. It offers significantly higher memory bandwidth at 128.0 GB/s compared to the Quadro's 80.19 GB/s, and it has a wider 256-bit memory bus versus the Quadro's 128-bit interface. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, this could narrow the gap. The GTX 560 also has more texture mapping units (56 vs. 40) and more render output units (32 vs. 16), which could benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks.

The verdict: the Quadro M2000M wins on overall compute performance, modern architecture, and API support. The GTX 560 wins on memory bandwidth and raw pixel throughput, making it a niche pick for specific legacy workloads. For most users, the Quadro is the stronger choice. For those with bandwidth-critical applications, the GTX 560 warrants consideration.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M2000M dominates in compute-oriented benchmarks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 10,057 is not just higher than the GTX 560's 9,058, it also sits comfortably above several notable rivals. The Quadro's average score of 9,832 is only 0.1% below the NVIDIA Quadro 6000's 9,846, and it outperforms the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803) by 0.3%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780) by 0.5%, and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724) by 1.1%. These comparisons place the Quadro in surprisingly competitive company, given its mobile MXM form factor.

The GTX 560's wins are narrower but real. Its 128.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 59.7% higher than the Quadro's 80.19 GB/s. Its 32 ROPs double the Quadro's 16, and its pixel rate of 11.34 GPixel/s, while lower than the Quadro's 18.19 GPixel/s, is delivered through a wider memory path. The GTX 560's texture rate of 45.36 GTexel/s is nearly identical to the Quadro's 45.48 GTexel/s, despite the GTX having more TMUs, suggesting the Quadro's higher clock speeds compensate for its fewer texture units.

In the use-case split, the Quadro M2000M is the choice for OpenCL compute workloads, modern API support, and any application that benefits from its 4 GB of VRAM. The GTX 560 is the choice for bandwidth-sensitive workloads and older applications that were optimized for Fermi's memory architecture. The GTX 560's launch MSRP was 199 USD, though pricing considerations are beyond the scope of this analysis.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different generations of NVIDIA design philosophy. The Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip built on Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 560 uses the GF114 chip on Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a larger 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process difference explains much of the efficiency gap: the Quadro's die is 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors (12.6M transistors per mm²), while the GTX 560's die is 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors (5.9M per mm²). The Quadro packs nearly the same transistor count into less than half the die area.

The Quadro's Maxwell architecture brings notable feature advantages. It supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 560 has no Vulkan support at all. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro's modern architecture is better positioned for contemporary driver optimizations. The Quadro also has a significantly higher FP32 throughput at 1,455.4 GFLOPS versus the GTX 560's 1,088.6 GFLOPS, a 33.7% advantage in raw compute.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The Quadro ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 5 Gbps effective, yielding 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560 has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 4 Gbps effective, yielding 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560's wider bus gives it a 59.7% bandwidth advantage, but the Quadro's four times larger memory capacity allows it to hold far larger datasets.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The Quadro is a 55 W MXM module with no power connectors, designed for laptops and mobile workstations. The GTX 560 is a 150 W dual-slot card requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU, measuring 210 mm in length. The Quadro's power efficiency, more than double the FP32 performance per watt, is a direct consequence of its newer architecture and smaller process node.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 has an average score of 9,058. The Quadro leads by roughly 8.5%.

Q: What is the performance difference in the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 versus the GTX 560's 9,058, resulting in an 11% win for the Quadro.

Q: Does the GTX 560 have any meaningful advantages over the Quadro M2000M?

A: Yes. The GTX 560 has 128.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the Quadro's 80.19 GB/s, a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, 32 ROPs versus 16, and 56 TMUs versus 40. Its pixel rate of 11.34 GPixel/s is lower, but its texture rate of 45.36 GTexel/s is nearly identical to the Quadro's 45.48 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan, with version 1.4 support. The GTX 560 has no Vulkan support listed in the data.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in power consumption?

A: The Quadro M2000M has a 55 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors. The GTX 560 has a 150 W TDP, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and needs a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for these GPUs?

A: The Quadro M2000M ranks in the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 560 ranks in the 45th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it tells a clear story. The Quadro M2000M delivers a score of 10,057 against the GTX 560's 9,058, an 11% advantage. This is not a narrow margin; it is a substantial lead that reflects the architectural gulf between Maxwell and Fermi 2.0.

Breaking down what drives this 11% difference, the Quadro's advantages are evident across multiple metrics. Its FP32 throughput of 1,455.4 GFLOPS is 33.7% higher than the GTX 560's 1,088.6 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 18.19 GPixel/s is 60.4% higher than the GTX 560's 11.34 GPixel/s. While the GTX 560 counters with higher memory bandwidth (128.0 GB/s vs. 80.19 GB/s) and more ROPs (32 vs. 16), OpenCL compute workloads tend to favor raw shader throughput and memory capacity over bandwidth alone.

The Quadro's 4 GB VRAM is a significant factor in modern OpenCL workloads. The GTX 560's 1 GB capacity could become a bottleneck for larger datasets, forcing data to be swapped from system memory. The Quadro's 640 shading units also outnumber the GTX 560's 336 by nearly 2-to-1, and while the GTX 560 has more TMUs, the Quadro's higher clock speeds nearly equalize texture throughput.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the Quadro's position. Its average score of 9,832 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846) and ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780), and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724). The GTX 560's average of 9,058 sits within 0.2% of the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037) and the GeForce GTX 660 (9,022), but trails the AMD Radeon 890M (9,210) by 1.7% and leads the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918) by 1.6%.

The only benchmark where the GTX 560 could plausibly close the gap is one that heavily stresses memory bandwidth. Its 59.7% bandwidth advantage is substantial, but the data available does not include such a test. Based strictly on the evidence, the Quadro M2000M wins the head-to-head comparison with an 11% margin, and the win count stands at 1-0 in its favor.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture, while the GTX 560 uses the GF114 chip on Fermi 2.0 architecture. The Quadro is built on a 28 nm process, the GTX 560 on 40 nm. The Quadro's die is 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors; the GTX 560's die is 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors.

Memory configurations diverge completely. The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks differ as well: the Quadro runs at 5 Gbps effective, the GTX 560 at 4 Gbps effective.

Compute resources favor the Quadro in shading units (640 vs. 336) and FP32 performance (1,455.4 GFLOPS vs. 1,088.6 GFLOPS). The GTX 560 counters with more TMUs (56 vs. 40) and more ROPs (32 vs. 16). Pixel rates favor the Quadro (18.19 GPixel/s vs. 11.34 GPixel/s), while texture rates are nearly identical (45.48 GTexel/s vs. 45.36 GTexel/s).

Power and physical specifications show the biggest divergence. The Quadro is a 55 W MXM Module with no power connectors. The GTX 560 is a 150 W dual-slot card with 2x 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU, measuring 210 mm in length. The Quadro uses a MXM-A (3.0) bus interface; the GTX 560 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

API support differs in Vulkan (Quadro supports 1.4, GTX 560 has none) but matches on DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the Quadro, while the GTX 560 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro was released in December 2015, succeeding Quadro Kepler-M and preceding Quadro Pascal-M. The GTX 560 was released in May 2011, succeeding GeForce 400 and preceding GeForce 600.