NVIDIA Quadro 2000M vs NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro 2000M and NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 50% higher pipelines: 192 vs 128
- Around 2% better floating-point performance: 422.4 gflops vs 416.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 55 Watt vs 135 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 512 MB
- Around 10% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1640 MHz
- Around 40% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 778 vs 555
- 3.3x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 233 vs 71
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 13 January 2011 vs 11 December 2007 |
| Pipelines | 192 vs 128 |
| Floating-point performance | 422.4 gflops vs 416.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt vs 135 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1640 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 778 vs 555 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 233 vs 71 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
- Around 18% higher core clock speed: 650 MHz vs 550 MHz
- 2.4x more texture fill rate: 41.6 GTexel / s vs 17.6 GTexel / s
- Around 30% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3342 vs 2569
- Around 30% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3342 vs 2569
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz vs 550 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 41.6 GTexel / s vs 17.6 GTexel / s |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3342 vs 2569 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3342 vs 2569 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro 2000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro 2000M | NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 778 | 555 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 233 | 71 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3414 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.306 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 272.707 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.855 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 14.423 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 27.158 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1261 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1926 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2569 | 3342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1261 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1926 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2569 | 3342 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro 2000M | NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Fermi | Tesla |
| Code name | GF106 | G92 |
| Launch date | 13 January 2011 | 11 December 2007 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $46.56 | $349 |
| Place in performance rating | 1338 | 1340 |
| Price now | $46.56 | |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 25.92 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 422.4 gflops | 416.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 192 | 128 |
| Texture fill rate | 17.6 GTexel / s | 41.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt | 135 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,170 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Length | 254 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB / s | 52.5 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1640 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro 2000M with others
NVIDIAQuadro 2000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 8800 GTS 512
NVIDIAQuadro 2000M vs
ATIRadeon HD 4830
NVIDIAQuadro 2000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 440
NVIDIAQuadro 2000M vs
NVIDIATesla M2070
NVIDIAQuadro 2000M vs
AMDFirePro V3900
NVIDIAQuadro 2000M vs
IntelUHD Graphics 610
