NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a dominant performance gap between the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M in the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 against 7,176 for the GTX 765M, a delta of 180.4% in favor of the Pascal-based workstation card. That is not a marginal improvement; it represents a near tripling of raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The Quadro P2000 posts 23,566 while the GTX 765M manages 6,714, yielding a delta of 251%. This suggests that the architectural changes between Kepler and Pascal, combined with the much higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth of the newer card, translate into a massive advantage in modern graphics API workloads. The GTX 765M, despite being a capable part in its own generation, simply cannot keep pace in these compute-oriented tests.

It is importantly the two cards do not share any other benchmark entries in the database. The Quadro P2000 has additional Passmark scores across DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute, while the GTX 765M only has Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan results. This limits direct comparisons to the two Geekbench tests, but the available data is unambiguous: the Quadro P2000 wins both head-to-head matchups, with winsA equal to 2 and winsB equal to 0.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro P2000 sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 6,049. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (average score 6,077, delta -0.5%), the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6,078, delta -0.5%), the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, delta 0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6,001, delta 0.8%). The GTX 765M, by contrast, sits at the 32nd percentile with an average score of 5,501. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5,508, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483, delta 0.3%), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5,467, delta 0.6%), and the AMD FirePro M4000 (5,537, delta -0.7%). The average score difference between the two cards is 548 points, or roughly 10%, but the head-to-head Geekbench results show a far larger spread because those tests stress compute and API throughput where the Quadro P2000's architecture excels.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro P2000 is built on the GP106 chip using the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip with the older Kepler architecture, on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This process node difference alone explains much of the efficiency and clock speed gap. The Pascal chip packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The Kepler chip contains 2,540 million transistors on a larger 221 mm² die, giving a density of only 11.5M per mm². The newer process allows nearly twice the transistor density, which directly enables higher clocks and more compute units per watt.

Clock speeds reinforce this advantage. The Quadro P2000 runs at a base clock of 1076 MHz and a boost of 1480 MHz. The GTX 765M operates at 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost. That is a 35% higher base clock and a 71% higher boost clock for the Pascal part. Memory clocks differ as well: the Quadro P2000 uses 1752 MHz memory with 7 Gbps effective data rate, while the GTX 765M runs at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. Memory configuration is also different. The Quadro P2000 ships with 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 765M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.13 GB/s. That is a 2.2x advantage in memory bandwidth for the newer card.

Compute resources differ substantially. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, but only 16 ROPs. The ROP count is particularly telling: the Pascal card has 2.5 times the pixel throughput capability. Pixel rate for the Quadro P2000 is 59.20 GPixel/s versus 13.81 GPixel/s for the GTX 765M. Texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s versus 55.23 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.031 TFLOPS against 1,325.6 GFLOPS, a 2.3x gap. The Quadro P2000 also has FP16 support at 47.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the GTX 765M has no recorded FP16 capability.

The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The feature level difference in DirectX matters for certain rendering paths. The Quadro P2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, while the GTX 765M is an MXM module, also 75 W, with no power connectors. The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro P2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 765M uses MXM-B (3.0), reflecting its laptop-oriented design. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the Quadro P2000 versus "Portable Device Dependent" on the GTX 765M, which means the latter's outputs depend entirely on the host laptop. Physical dimensions are only recorded for the Quadro P2000: 196 mm length (7.7 inches) and 111 mm height (4.4 inches). The GTX 765M has no recorded dimensions, as MXM modules vary by vendor implementation.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins in every measured head-to-head category. In OpenCL compute, it leads by 180.4%, making it the clear choice for workloads that rely on general-purpose GPU compute, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. In Vulkan, the lead expands to 251%, indicating that modern graphics APIs that expose lower-level hardware access benefit disproportionately from the Pascal architecture's higher clock speeds, larger ROP count, and greater memory bandwidth. The Quadro P2000 also has a far larger frame buffer at 5 GB versus 2 GB, which matters for large textures or compute datasets that exceed the GTX 765M's capacity. The 140.2 GB/s bandwidth versus 64.13 GB/s means memory-bound tasks will see a substantial advantage on the Pascal card.

The GTX 765M does not win any of the recorded head-to-head tests. Its only standalone benchmark where it has a recorded score and the Quadro P2000 does not is Geekbench Metal, where it scores 2,612. This is not useful for a direct comparison, but it does indicate that the Kepler part has some Metal API support. In practical terms, the GTX 765M may still be sufficient for older or lighter workloads, particularly those that do not stress compute or memory bandwidth. Its 768 shading units and 64 TMUs are not trivial, and its 13.81 GPixel/s pixel rate can handle modest resolutions. However, the data strongly suggests that any task that can use OpenCL or Vulkan will run dramatically faster on the Quadro P2000. The GTX 765M's 32nd percentile ranking versus the Quadro P2000's 35th percentile also places it lower in the overall distribution, though both are in the lower half of all GPUs.

For users who need professional display outputs, the Quadro P2000's 4x DisplayPort 1.4a is a clear advantage over the GTX 765M's portable-device-dependent outputs. The Quadro P2000 is also a standard PCIe card, making it easy to install in a desktop workstation, while the GTX 765M is an MXM module intended for laptops. The Quadro P2000's suggested PSU is 250 W, which is modest, while the GTX 765M has no suggested PSU recorded, reflecting its integrated mobile design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M delivers 1,325.6 GFLOPS. The Quadro P2000 is about 2.3 times faster in this metric.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth from 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus. The GTX 765M has 64.13 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The Quadro P2000 offers more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are recorded as end-of-life. The Quadro P2000 was released on 2017-02-05, and the GTX 765M was released on 2013-05-29.

Q: What is the power consumption of each card?

A: Both cards have a TDP of 75 W. The Quadro P2000 is a single-slot PCIe card with no power connectors, while the GTX 765M is an MXM module with no power connectors.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro P2000 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: How do the two cards rank among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro P2000 is at the 35th percentile with an average benchmark score of 6,049. The GTX 765M is at the 32nd percentile with an average score of 5,501.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M:

• Chip: GP106 versus GK106
• Architecture: Pascal versus Kepler
• Generation: Quadro Pascal (Px000) versus GeForce 700M
• Process node: 16 nm versus 28 nm
• Transistors: 4,400 million versus 2,540 million
• Die size: 200 mm² versus 221 mm²
• Transistor density: 22.0M / mm² versus 11.5M / mm²
• Base clock: 1076 MHz versus 797 MHz
• Boost clock: 1480 MHz versus 863 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
• Pixel rate: 59.20 GPixel/s versus 13.81 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 94.72 GTexel/s versus 55.23 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.031 TFLOPS versus 1,325.6 GFLOPS
• FP16: 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) versus not available
• Slot width: Single-slot versus MXM Module
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus MXM-B (3.0)
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX version: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan version: 1.4 versus 1.2.175
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus not available
• Dimensions: 196 mm length, 111 mm height versus not available
• Release date: 2017-02-05 versus 2013-05-29
• Predecessor: Quadro Maxwell versus GeForce 600M
• Successor: Quadro Volta versus GeForce 800M