NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro P2000 records an average benchmark score of 6049, while the GTX 980M sits at 5308. The Quadro P2000 sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 980M is in the 31st percentile.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro P2000 is significantly ahead in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 23566 against the GTX 980M’s 17703, a 33.1% advantage.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 980M has the higher bandwidth at 160.4 GB/s, compared to the Quadro P2000’s 140.2 GB/s. The GTX 980M also has a wider 256-bit memory bus versus the Quadro P2000’s 160-bit bus.

Q: How do the two cards compare in DirectX 11 performance?

A: The GTX 980M leads in the Passmark DirectX 11 test with a score of 57, versus 47 for the Quadro P2000, a 17.5% margin in favor of the GTX 980M.

Q: What are the process node differences between the two?

A: The Quadro P2000 is built on a 16 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 980M uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The Quadro P2000’s chip is much smaller at 200 mm² versus the GTX 980M’s 398 mm².

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture units?

A: The GTX 980M has more shading units (1536 versus 1024) and more texture units (96 versus 64). The GTX 980M also has more ROPs (64 versus 40).

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two by workload type. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins the majority of the recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons, taking 6 of 9 tests. It holds decisive advantages in legacy DirectX performance and raw compute in certain APIs. The Quadro P2000, however, wins the Vulkan test by a wide margin and also takes the 2D and compute-specific Passmark tests.

For users who prioritize DirectX 9, 10, 11, or 12 performance, the GTX 980M is the stronger pick. Its wins in those tests range from a narrow 0.8% margin in DirectX 9 to a substantial 17.5% in DirectX 11. The GTX 980M also leads in the OpenCL benchmark, scoring 23832 versus the Quadro P2000’s 20125.

The Quadro P2000 is the better choice for Vulkan-based workloads and for 2D performance. Its Vulkan score of 23566 is 33.1% higher than the GTX 980M’s, and its Passmark G2D score of 626 beats the GTX 980M’s 490 by 27.8%. The Quadro P2000 also edges out the GTX 980M in Passmark GPU compute, 2933 versus 2816.

The GTX 980M offers more memory (8 GB versus 5 GB) and a wider memory bus, which explains its higher bandwidth. The Quadro P2000 counters with a much smaller die and higher transistor density, leading to better efficiency per square millimeter.

In short: pick the GTX 980M for broad DirectX coverage and higher raw shading throughput. Pick the Quadro P2000 for Vulkan-centric applications, 2D acceleration, and compute tasks where the Passmark GPU compute score matters more.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win in the dataset belongs to the Quadro P2000 in the Geekbench Vulkan test. With a score of 23566 against 17703, the Quadro P2000 leads by 33.1%. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the Pascal architecture’s Vulkan implementation is far more efficient than the Maxwell 2.0 design in the GTX 980M.

The GTX 980M’s biggest win is in the Passmark DirectX 11 test. It scores 57 versus 47, a 17.5% advantage. This is followed by the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 980M scores 23832 versus 20125, a 15.6% lead. In the Passmark DirectX 12 test, the GTX 980M wins 31 to 28, a 9.7% margin.

The Quadro P2000 wins the Passmark G2D test decisively, 626 to 490, a 27.8% lead. This suggests the Quadro P2000 has a stronger 2D rendering path. In Passmark GPU compute, the Quadro P2000 wins narrowly, 2933 to 2816, a 4.2% edge.

The remaining tests are close. In Passmark DirectX 10, the GTX 980M wins 35 to 34, a 2.9% margin. In DirectX 9, the GTX 980M wins 125 to 124, a 0.8% difference. The Passmark G3D test goes to the GTX 980M, 7338 to 6956, a 5.2% lead.

Overall, the GTX 980M’s wins are concentrated in the DirectX family and OpenCL, where its larger shading core count and higher memory bandwidth pay off. The Quadro P2000’s wins are in Vulkan, 2D, and compute, where its newer architecture and higher clock speeds make a difference.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip on a 16 nm process, while the GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip on a 28 nm process. The Quadro P2000 packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The GTX 980M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, for a density of 13.1M per mm².

Clock speeds differ as well. The Quadro P2000 has a base clock of 1076 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz. The GTX 980M runs at 1038 MHz base and 1127 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro P2000 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the GTX 980M runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, yielding 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s.

The compute units differ significantly. The Quadro P2000 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The GTX 980M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rates reflect this: the Quadro P2000 outputs 59.20 GPixel/s, while the GTX 980M outputs 72.13 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 94.72 GTexel/s for the Quadro P2000 and 108.2 GTexel/s for the GTX 980M.

The Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W and is a single-slot card with no power connectors, requiring a 250 W PSU. The GTX 980M is an MXM module with no listed TDP or PSU requirement. The Quadro P2000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the GTX 980M uses MXM-B (3.0).

Display outputs differ: the Quadro P2000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 980M’s outputs are labeled as portable device dependent. The Quadro P2000 has physical dimensions of 196 mm length and 111 mm height; the GTX 980M has no listed dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro P2000 is built on the Pascal architecture, while the GTX 980M uses Maxwell 2.0. This generation gap explains several performance differences. Pascal is a 16 nm design, whereas Maxwell 2.0 is a 28 nm design. The Quadro P2000’s smaller process allows for a much higher transistor density, 22.0M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm².

The Quadro P2000 has a higher boost clock, 1480 MHz versus 1127 MHz for the GTX 980M. This clock advantage helps the Quadro P2000 in tests that are not limited by memory bandwidth or shading count. The Vulkan score is a clear example: the Quadro P2000’s newer architecture delivers a 33.1% higher score despite having fewer shading units.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro P2000 has no FP16 capability listed beyond a 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) figure, while the GTX 980M has no FP16 data at all. The Quadro P2000’s FP32 output is 3.031 TFLOPS, slightly below the GTX 980M’s 3.462 TFLOPS.

The GTX 980M’s larger die and higher transistor count give it more raw shading power, which shows in its DirectX and OpenCL wins. The Quadro P2000’s smaller die and higher clocks give it efficiency and a stronger Vulkan path. The Quadro P2000 is also a desktop card with a standard PCIe interface and DisplayPort outputs, while the GTX 980M is a mobile MXM module.

Generation lineage also differs. The Quadro P2000 succeeds Quadro Maxwell and is succeeded by Quadro Volta. The GTX 980M succeeds GeForce 800M and is succeeded by GeForce 10 Mobile. Both are end-of-life products in the database.