NVIDIA Quadro M2000M vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 are both end-of-life professional mobile and desktop workstation GPUs, respectively, but they represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA's professional lineup. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the P4000 dominating every shared benchmark instance. However, the M2000M still holds relevance in specific low-power or legacy contexts. This analysis breaks down where each card wins, answers common questions from the data, and examines the architectural chasm between Maxwell and Pascal.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data provided, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins every single head-to-head comparison. In the two shared tests, the P4000 outperforms the M2000M by a massive margin. Specifically, in Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000 scores 36,212 versus the M2000M's 10,057, a delta of -72.2% from the M2000M's perspective. In Geekbench Vulkan, the P4000 scores 41,786 against the M2000M's 9,606, a delta of -77%. The win count is 2-0 in favor of the P4000.

There is no benchmark in the fact pack where the M2000M comes out ahead. The M2000M's only advantage lies in its physical and power profile, not its raw compute. Its TDP is 55 W compared to the P4000's 105 W, and it uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices where the P4000's single-slot, 1x 6-pin powered design would not fit. The M2000M's display outputs are also "Portable Device Dependent," reinforcing its mobile-only intent. Therefore, the M2000M "wins" in the niche of integrated mobile workstations, while the P4000 wins in every measurable performance category.

The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story, though. The M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, while the P4000 has an average of 9,665. This is counterintuitive given the P4000's dominance in the head-to-head tests. The P4000's average is dragged down by its inclusion of Passmark tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute) which are not present in the M2000M's data. The M2000M's average is based solely on its two strong Geekbench scores. This discrepancy highlights that the "average" is not a direct comparison but a composite of different test suites.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is decisively faster. It scores 36,212 compared to the M2000M's 10,057. The deltaPct shows the M2000M is 72.2% behind the P4000 in this test.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The P4000 wins again with a score of 41,786 versus the M2000M's 9,606. The performance gap is even wider here, with the M2000M trailing by 77%.

Q: Does the M2000M have any performance advantage?

A: No. In the two benchmark tests shared by both GPUs, the M2000M does not win either. Its wins are limited to its form factor and power requirements, not its computational output.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card, and what does it mean?

A: The M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, while the P4000 has an average of 9,665. This is misleading because the P4000's average includes lower Passmark scores, which are not part of the M2000M's benchmark set. The head-to-head tests are more representative of relative performance.

Q: Are these GPUs considered high-performance in the current market?

A: Both have a percentileVsAllGpus of 47, meaning they sit at the 47th percentile of all GPUs. This indicates they are mid-range performers historically, not top-tier. Their nearest rivals include cards like the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and AMD FirePro W5000 for the M2000M, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M for the P4000.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The P4000 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 243.3 GB/s, compared to the M2000M's 80.19 GB/s. This is a direct result of the P4000's wider 256-bit memory bus and faster 7.6 Gbps effective memory clock.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparisons available are the two Geekbench tests, and they paint a picture of total dominance for the P4000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000's score of 36,212 is more than 3.6 times higher than the M2000M's 10,057. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap. The deltaPct of -72.2% indicates that the M2000M's score is a fraction of the P4000's, representing a substantial deficit in raw compute throughput.

The Vulkan test reveals an even larger gulf. The P4000 scores 41,786, while the M2000M manages only 9,606. The deltaPct here is -77%, meaning the M2000M's Vulkan performance is less than a quarter of the P4000's. This suggests that the P4000's architecture is not only faster in raw GFLOPs but also more efficient at handling modern API workloads. The M2000M's Vulkan score of 9,606 is actually lower than its OpenCL score, whereas the P4000's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score, indicating the P4000 scales better with newer APIs.

These results align with the raw specification differences. The P4000 has a boost clock of 1480 MHz versus the M2000M's 1137 MHz. More importantly, the P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the M2000M has only 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The P4000's pixel rate is 94.72 GPixel/s and texture rate is 165.8 GTexel/s, dwarfing the M2000M's 18.19 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 5.304 TFLOPS for the P4000 versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS (1.455 TFLOPS) for the M2000M. Every metric points to the same conclusion: the P4000 is in a different performance class.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The M2000M uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm process, while the P4000 uses the GP104 chip on a 16 nm process. The P4000's die size is 314 mm² with 7,200 million transistors, while the M2000M's die is 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors. The transistor density is 22.9M / mm² for the P4000 versus 12.6M / mm² for the M2000M.

Memory is a major differentiator. The M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth and a 1253 MHz memory clock (5 Gbps effective). The P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s bandwidth and a 1901 MHz memory clock (7.6 Gbps effective). The P4000 doubles the memory size and more than triples the bandwidth.

Clock speeds also differ. The M2000M has a base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost of 1137 MHz. The P4000 has a base of 1202 MHz and a boost of 1480 MHz. The P4000's boost clock is notably higher, contributing to its performance lead.

Physical and power characteristics are starkly different. The M2000M is a 55 W MXM Module with no power connectors and an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. The P4000 is a 105 W single-slot card requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The P4000 has dimensions of 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The M2000M has no listed dimensions, as it is a mobile module. The P4000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the M2000M's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the M2000M and P4000 is fundamental. The M2000M is based on the Maxwell architecture, while the P4000 uses Pascal. This is evident in the chip design: GM107 versus GP104. The process node shrunk from 28 nm to 16 nm, allowing the P4000 to pack nearly four times the transistors (7,200 million vs 1,870 million) into a die that is only about twice as large.

The compute resources are vastly different. The M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This translates to a 3.6x difference in FP32 compute (5.304 TFLOPS vs 1,455.4 GFLOPS). The P4000 also has FP16 capability at 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), which the M2000M lacks entirely.

DirectX support differs. The M2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The P4000's higher DirectX feature level is a direct consequence of the newer Pascal architecture.

The memory architecture is also a key difference. The P4000's 256-bit bus is double the M2000M's 128-bit bus, and the effective memory speed is higher (7.6 Gbps vs 5 Gbps). This results in a 3x bandwidth advantage (243.3 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), which is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures in professional workloads.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for performance: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the superior GPU. It wins all head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 72% to 77%. Its raw compute, memory bandwidth, and pixel/texture rates are all overwhelmingly higher. For any workload that relies on GPU compute, rendering, or modern API support, the P4000 is the clear choice.

However, the M2000M is not without purpose. Its 55 W TDP and MXM form factor make it the only option for portable workstations. The P4000's 105 W TDP and single-slot PCIe design require a desktop chassis with a 300 W PSU. The M2000M's "Portable Device Dependent" outputs mean it can be integrated into laptops where the P4000's 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs are irrelevant.

The average benchmark scores are a statistical anomaly. The M2000M's average of 9,832 is higher than the P4000's 9,665, but this is due to different test suites. The P4000's Passmark scores (e.g., 66 in DirectX 10, 86 in DirectX 11, 40 in DirectX 12, 181 in DirectX 9) are low and drag down its average. The M2000M only has two Geekbench scores, both of which are relatively strong for its class. When comparing the same tests, the P4000 wins decisively.

Who should pick which? A professional needing maximum compute performance in a desktop workstation should pick the P4000. Its 8 GB memory and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth handle larger datasets, and its 5.304 TFLOPS FP32 performance is a generation ahead. The M2000M is for users constrained by power and space, specifically mobile workstation users who need basic Quadro features like certified drivers and ECC memory (though ECC is not listed, the Quadro branding implies professional validation) in a laptop form factor. The P4000 is the performance winner; the M2000M is the mobility winner. The data does not support any other conclusion.