NVIDIA Quadro M2000M vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

# The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a narrow but clear picture: the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 edges out the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M in the single available head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a margin of 3.4%. The Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 against the Quadro M2000M's 10,057. This is a close contest, not a decisive victory, and the choice between them should hinge on workload type and platform constraints rather than raw performance.

The Tesla C2075, with a percentile rank of 48 versus the Quadro M2000M's 47, sits marginally higher in the overall GPU landscape. Its nearest rivals—the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10,362 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481 (0.8% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A at 10,273 (1.2% lower)—cluster tightly around its score. The Quadro M2000M's neighbors include the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 9,846 (0.1% lower), the AMD FirePro W5000 at 9,803 (0.3% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780 (0.5% lower). Both cards are firmly mid-pack performers.

For compute-heavy tasks in a fixed workstation or server chassis, the Tesla C2075's larger memory pool and higher bandwidth make it the data-driven pick. For mobile or space-constrained deployments where power draw and physical footprint matter, the Quadro M2000M is the only viable option. The data does not support a universal recommendation; the Tesla C2075 wins the raw score, but the Quadro M2000M wins on efficiency and form factor. The verdict, strictly from the numbers, is that the Tesla C2075 offers slightly better compute performance, while the Quadro M2000M is the superior choice for portable or low-power systems.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two NVIDIA parts is substantial, reflecting their different eras and design goals. The Tesla C2075 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, using the GF110 chip fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro M2000M employs the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, also from TSMC but on a more advanced 28 nm node. This process shrink allows the Quadro M2000M to pack 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Tesla C2075, in contrast, houses 3,000 million transistors on a much larger 520 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 5.8 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Tesla C2075 deploys 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operation pipelines. The Quadro M2000M counters with 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This means the Maxwell part has more raw shader throughput but far fewer pixel-processing pipelines. The Tesla C2075's compute potential is rated at 1,027.7 GFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro M2000M reaches 1,455.4 GFLOPS FP32—a 41.6% higher theoretical peak. However, the Tesla C2075's texture rate of 32.14 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s are both lower than the Quadro M2000M's 45.48 GTexel/s and 18.19 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The Tesla C2075 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding just 80.19 GB/s. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: the Quadro M2000M runs at a 1098 MHz base and 1137 MHz boost, while the Tesla C2075 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). The Quadro M2000M's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Feature support differs as well. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the Quadro M2000M lists Vulkan support, at version 1.4. The Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan entry. Neither card features ray tracing or tensor cores. The Tesla C2075 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro M2000M is an MXM-A (3.0) module. Display outputs also diverge: the Tesla C2075 offers a single DVI port, while the Quadro M2000M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this run, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10,057. The Tesla C2075 wins by a delta of 3.4%. This is a modest but real advantage. In the context of the Tesla C2075's nearest rivals—where it sits just 0.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 6500M and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A—this 3.4% lead over the Quadro M2000M is consistent with its slightly higher percentile ranking.

The Quadro M2000M's own benchmark portfolio includes a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,606, which is 4.5% lower than its OpenCL result. This Vulkan figure is not directly comparable to the Tesla C2075, as the Fermi card has no Vulkan support listed. The OpenCL numbers, however, tell a clear story: the Tesla C2075's 10,400 score places it 0.4% above the AMD Radeon RX 6500M's 10,362 and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon RX 550X's 10,481. The Quadro M2000M's 10,057 OpenCL score is 0.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro 6000's 9,846 and 0.3% below the AMD FirePro W5000's 9,803.

Looking at the benchmark averages, the Tesla C2075 holds an average of 10,400, while the Quadro M2000M's average is 9,832—a gap of 5.8%. This average is pulled down by the Quadro M2000M's lower Vulkan score. The head-to-head delta of 3.4% is therefore the more relevant figure for direct comparison. The Tesla C2075's win count of 1 against 0 for the Quadro M2000M reflects this single-test outcome. It is a narrow victory, and the data suggests that real-world performance differences would be within noise for many workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro M2000M has a higher theoretical FP32 rating at 1,455.4 GFLOPS, compared to the Tesla C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. However, the Tesla C2075 scores higher in the Geekbench OpenCL test, 10,400 versus 10,057.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W and requires no power connectors, while the Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and needs a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector. The Quadro M2000M also has no suggested PSU rating, whereas the Tesla C2075 recommends a 550 W power supply.

Q: Can both cards support Vulkan?

A: No. The Quadro M2000M lists Vulkan support at version 1.4, while the Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the form factor and interface differences?

A: The Tesla C2075 is a dual-slot card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and a 248 mm length. The Quadro M2000M is an MXM module with an MXM-A (3.0) interface and no specified dimensions.

Q: How do their release dates compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 was released on July 24, 2011, while the Quadro M2000M came later on December 2, 2015. Both are now end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla C2075 wins in scenarios that demand high memory bandwidth and capacity. Its 6 GB frame buffer, 384-bit bus, and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth are more than double the Quadro M2000M's 80.19 GB/s. This makes it the data-backed choice for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or compute workloads that spill beyond 4 GB of VRAM. Its single DVI output and dual-slot design suggest a stationary workstation or server role, where the 247 W TDP and dual power connectors are acceptable trade-offs for memory throughput.

The Quadro M2000M wins on efficiency and portability. With a 55 W TDP and no power connectors, it draws less than a quarter of the Tesla C2075's power budget. Its MXM-A (3.0) form factor and portable device dependent outputs are designed for laptops or compact modules. The Maxwell architecture's higher transistor density (12.6M/mm² versus 5.8M/mm²) and newer 28 nm process allow for higher clock speeds—1098 MHz base and 1137 MHz boost—which contribute to its superior FP32 throughput of 1,455.4 GFLOPS. Its Vulkan 1.4 support gives it an API advantage for modern applications.

For compute-oriented tasks measured by OpenCL, the Tesla C2075's 3.4% head-to-head lead is the deciding factor. For any application that benefits from higher pixel rate (18.19 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s) or texture rate (45.48 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s), the Quadro M2000M is superior. The Quadro M2000M also has more shading units (640 versus 448), which helps in shader-bound workloads despite the Fermi card's wider memory bus.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip on Fermi 2.0 architecture, while the Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell. Process nodes are 40 nm and 28 nm, respectively, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are 3,000 million versus 1,870 million, with die sizes of 520 mm² and 148 mm². Transistor density favors the Quadro M2000M at 12.6M/mm² versus 5.8M/mm².

Clock speeds: the Tesla C2075 has no listed base or boost clocks, but its memory is rated at 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). The Quadro M2000M runs at 1098 MHz base, 1137 MHz boost, and 1253 MHz memory (5 Gbps effective). Memory size is 6 GB versus 4 GB, both GDDR5, with bus widths of 384-bit and 128-bit. Bandwidth is 150.3 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Core counts: 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs for the Tesla C2075; 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the Quadro M2000M. Pixel rates are 16.07 GPixel/s versus 18.19 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 32.14 GTexel/s versus 45.48 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs: TDP is 247 W versus 55 W. The Tesla C2075 is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU; the Quadro M2000M is an MXM module with no connectors and no suggested PSU. Bus interfaces are PCIe 2.0 x16 versus MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs are 1x DVI versus portable device dependent. API support differs on Vulkan: the Quadro M2000M lists 1.4, the Tesla C2075 does not list any. Release dates are July 24, 2011, and December 2, 2015.