GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has a higher average benchmark score of 6049, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M trails at 5236. This puts the P2000 in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 31st percentile for the GTX 760M.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P2000 scores 20125 against the GTX 760M's 5604, a delta of 259.1%. The P2000 leads by more than a factor of three in this compute-oriented test.

Q: What about Vulkan graphics performance?

A: The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro P2000 posts 23566, while the GTX 760M manages only 4868, a delta of 384.1%. The P2000 is nearly five times faster in this API workload.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P2000 ships with 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 760M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.13 GB/s. The P2000 more than doubles the memory capacity and bandwidth.

Q: How do their transistor counts and process nodes compare?

A: The Quadro P2000 uses a 16 nm TSMC process with 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The GTX 760M uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. Despite the larger die, the GTX 760M packs far fewer transistors due to the older, less dense node.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W, while the GTX 760M draws only 55 W. The P2000 delivers substantially more performance while consuming just 20 W more.

Where Each One Wins

The data divides cleanly across workloads and use cases. The Quadro P2000 wins every recorded benchmark, so the distinction is not about whether one beats the other, but about the scale of the advantage and what that means for real-world tasks.

For professional and compute-oriented workflows, the Quadro P2000 is the clear choice. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20125 versus 5604 for the GTX 760M represents a 259.1% advantage. This is the kind of workload that benefits from the P2000's higher shading unit count, 1024 versus 768, and its significantly higher clock speeds. OpenCL performance matters for rendering, simulation, and data processing, and the P2000 is in a different class.

The Vulkan results tell an even more lopsided story. The P2000 scores 23566 against 4868 for the GTX 760M, a 384.1% lead. Vulkan is increasingly used in modern games and professional visualization tools. The P2000's architecture supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. This is not just a raw speed difference, it is a feature gap that affects which applications can even run properly.

The GTX 760M retains a role in legacy or low-power scenarios. Its 55 W TDP makes it suitable for older portable devices, and its MXM Module form factor means it was designed for laptops rather than desktops. For users with a 2013-era gaming laptop that still functions, the GTX 760M remains adequate for older titles and basic 2D work. Its PassMark G2D performance is not in the database, so a direct comparison there is unavailable, but the card's lower power draw and mobile-oriented design keep it relevant in its niche.

The Quadro P2000, by contrast, is a desktop workstation card with a single-slot design, four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, and a 250 W suggested PSU. It is built for multi-monitor professional setups and sustained compute loads. The GTX 760M has no equivalent display flexibility, as its outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

In short, the P2000 wins every performance category, but the GTX 760M wins on power efficiency per watt and remains the only option for MXM-based laptops.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and target different market segments. The Quadro P2000 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP106 chip, while the GTX 760M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip.

The process technology separates them significantly. The P2000 is fabricated on a 16 nm TSMC node, while the GTX 760M uses a 28 nm TSMC node. This process difference explains much of the performance gap. The P2000 packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million per mm². The GTX 760M contains 2,540 million transistors on a larger 221 mm² die, for a density of just 11.5 million per mm². The P2000 nearly doubles the transistor density, which directly translates to higher compute throughput and better efficiency.

The memory subsystems reflect different design priorities. The P2000 uses a 160-bit bus with 5 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 760M uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB. Memory bandwidth is 140.2 GB/s for the P2000 versus 64.13 GB/s for the GTX 760M. The larger bus and higher effective memory clock, 7 Gbps versus 4 Gbps, give the P2000 more than double the bandwidth, which matters for high-resolution textures and compute workloads.

Shader resources also differ. The P2000 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, but only 16 ROPs. The ROP count difference is stark: 40 versus 16. This affects pixel fill rate, which is 59.20 GPixel/s for the P2000 versus 11.50 GPixel/s for the GTX 760M. The GTX 760M has the same number of TMUs as the P2000, but the texture rate is still far lower, 46.02 GTexel/s versus 94.72 GTexel/s, because of the clock speed disadvantage.

The FP32 compute output is 3.031 TFLOPS for the P2000 versus 1,104.4 GFLOPS for the GTX 760M. The P2000 is roughly 2.7 times faster in raw single-precision compute. The P2000 also supports FP16 at 47.36 GFLOPS, while the GTX 760M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Clock speeds favor the newer card. The P2000 runs at a base of 1076 MHz with a boost of 1480 MHz. The GTX 760M is far slower at 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost, likely due to the thermal constraints of its mobile form factor.

The API support differs in the details. Both support DirectX 12, but the P2000 reaches feature level 12_1 while the GTX 760M only manages 11_0. Both have OpenGL 4.6 support. Vulkan support is 1.4 for the P2000 and 1.2.175 for the GTX 760M, which means the P2000 supports newer Vulkan extensions and features.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category.

• Process node: 16 nm for the P2000, 28 nm for the GTX 760M
• Transistors: 4,400 million versus 2,540 million
• Die size: 200 mm² versus 221 mm²
• Transistor density: 22.0M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm²
• Base clock: 1076 MHz versus 628 MHz
• Boost clock: 1480 MHz versus 719 MHz
• Memory clock: 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 5 GB versus 2 GB
• Memory bus width: 160 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 140.2 GB/s versus 64.13 GB/s
• Shading units: 1024 versus 768
• ROPs: 40 versus 16
• TMUs: 64 for both
• Pixel rate: 59.20 GPixel/s versus 11.50 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 94.72 GTexel/s versus 46.02 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.031 TFLOPS versus 1,104.4 GFLOPS
• FP16: 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) for the P2000, none recorded for the GTX 760M
• TDP: 75 W versus 55 W
• Slot width: Single-slot versus MXM Module
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.2.175
• Suggested PSU: 250 W for the P2000, none recorded for the GTX 760M
• Release date: 2017-02-05 versus 2013-05-29

The P2000 has no power connectors and is a single-slot desktop card. The GTX 760M is an MXM module, which means it plugs into a laptop motherboard rather than a desktop PCIe slot. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Quadro P2000 and the GTX 760M, and the P2000 wins both by enormous margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2000 scores 20125 while the GTX 760M scores 5604. The delta is 259.1%. This is the smaller of the two gaps, but it still represents a fundamental class difference. OpenCL workloads include physics simulation, video encoding, and general-purpose GPU compute. The P2000's 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, combined with 140.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, explains why it dominates. The GTX 760M's 1,104.4 GFLOPS and 64.13 GB/s bandwidth leave it far behind.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the P2000 scores 23566 and the GTX 760M scores 4868, a delta of 384.1%. This is the largest recorded advantage. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics and compute API, and the P2000's architectural advantages compound here. The 384.1% lead is consistent with the combination of higher shader counts, faster clocks, and more memory bandwidth. The GTX 760M's Vulkan support is also older, version 1.2.175 versus 1.4 for the P2000, which can limit feature availability in newer applications.

The average benchmark scores place these cards in different tiers. The P2000 averages 6049, sitting right between the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (a 0.5% advantage for the MX230) and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (a 0.5% advantage for the P2000). The GTX 760M averages 5236, close to the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211 and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5284. The P2000 is roughly 15.5% faster than the GTX 760M on average, but the head-to-head results show that the gap is far larger in specific compute and graphics APIs.

The percentile rankings reinforce this. The P2000 sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 760M is in the 31st percentile. Both are below the median, but the P2000 is meaningfully closer to it.

In terms of raw throughput, the P2000's pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s is over five times the GTX 760M's 11.50 GPixel/s. The texture rate of 94.72 GTexel/s versus 46.02 GTexel/s is a 2.1x advantage. These numbers translate directly to frame buffer operations and texture-heavy rendering, which matter in both professional visualization and gaming.

The P2000 is the unequivocal winner in every measured category. The GTX 760M's only advantages are its lower power draw, 55 W versus 75 W, and its mobile MXM form factor, which the P2000 cannot match because it is a desktop card.