NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM 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).

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M2000

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 6 month(s) later
• Around 19% higher boost clock speed: 1163 MHz vs 980 MHz
• 2.3x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 170 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 10% higher memory clock speed: 6612 MHz vs 6008 MHz
• Around 1% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14541 vs 14380
• Around 33% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 55.048 vs 41.336
• Around 44% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 225.868 vs 156.419

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM

• Around 15% higher core clock speed: 915 MHz vs 796 MHz
• Around 94% higher texture fill rate: 109.8 GTexel / s vs 56.64 GTexel / s
• Around 75% higher pipelines: 1344 vs 768
• Around 45% better floating-point performance: 2,634 gflops vs 1,812 gflops
• Around 32% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5255 vs 3985
• Around 2% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 573 vs 561
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1351.496 vs 639.056
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.121 vs 3.697
• Around 62% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 58.14 vs 35.796
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3716 vs 3684
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 vs 3325
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3716 vs 3684
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 vs 3325

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3985 5255
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	561 573
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	14541 14380
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	55.048 41.336
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	639.056 1351.496
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.697 4.121
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	35.796 58.14
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	225.868 156.419
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3684 3716
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3325 3357
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3684 3716
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3325 3357

Compare specifications (specs)