NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 7 month(s) later
• Around 5% higher core clock speed: 657 MHz vs 625 MHz
• 2.1x more texture fill rate: 42.05 GTexel / s vs 20 GTexel / s
• 4x more pipelines: 768 vs 192
• 2.1x better floating-point performance: 1,009 gflops vs 480.0 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 13% lower typical power consumption: 55 Watt vs 62 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 76% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1720 vs 976
• Around 43% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5599 vs 3925
• Around 41% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 15.673 vs 11.122
• Around 59% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 509.958 vs 320.57
• 2.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.422 vs 12.67
• Around 73% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 53.992 vs 31.168
• Around 95% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2836 vs 1453
• Around 95% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2836 vs 1453

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D

• Around 30% higher memory clock speed: 2600 MHz vs 2000 MHz
• Around 41% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 328 vs 232
• Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3447 vs 2728
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 vs 3333
• Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3447 vs 2728
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 vs 3333

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 2000D

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1720 976
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	232 328
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	5599 3925
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	15.673 11.122
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	509.958 320.57
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.422 12.67
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	53.992 31.168
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2836 1453
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2728 3447
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3333 3353
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2836 1453
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2728 3447
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3333 3353

Compare specifications (specs)