NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M 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 Quadro M2000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 12% higher boost clock speed: 1163 MHz vs 1038 MHz
- Around 8% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 81 Watt
- 2.6x more memory clock speed: 6612 MHz vs 2500 MHz
- Around 48% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 564 vs 380
- 2.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 225.868 vs 81.909
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 8 April 2016 vs 7 October 2014 |
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz vs 1038 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 81 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz vs 2500 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 564 vs 380 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 225.868 vs 81.909 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M
- Around 16% higher core clock speed: 924 MHz vs 796 MHz
- Around 47% higher texture fill rate: 83.04 GTexel / s vs 56.64 GTexel / s
- Around 67% higher pipelines: 1280 vs 768
- Around 47% better floating-point performance: 2,657 gflops vs 1,812 gflops
- Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 6 GB vs 4 GB
- Around 43% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5699 vs 3995
- Around 31% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 19029 vs 14563
- Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 59.428 vs 55.048
- Around 74% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1113.788 vs 639.056
- Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.157 vs 3.697
- Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 39.101 vs 35.796
- Around 55% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8546 vs 5523
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3342 vs 3325
- Around 55% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8546 vs 5523
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3342 vs 3325
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 924 MHz vs 796 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 83.04 GTexel / s vs 56.64 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1280 vs 768 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,657 gflops vs 1,812 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 6 GB vs 4 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5699 vs 3995 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19029 vs 14563 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 59.428 vs 55.048 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1113.788 vs 639.056 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.157 vs 3.697 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 39.101 vs 35.796 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8546 vs 5523 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3699 vs 3684 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3342 vs 3325 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8546 vs 5523 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3699 vs 3684 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3342 vs 3325 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3995 | 5699 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 564 | 380 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14563 | 19029 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.048 | 59.428 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 639.056 | 1113.788 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.697 | 4.157 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.796 | 39.101 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 225.868 | 81.909 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5523 | 8546 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3684 | 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3325 | 3342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5523 | 8546 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3684 | 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3325 | 3342 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 303 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro M2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Code name | GM206 | GM204 |
| Launch date | 8 April 2016 | 7 October 2014 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | $2,560.89 |
| Place in performance rating | 582 | 584 |
| Price now | $409.99 | $1,899 |
| Type | Workstation | Laptop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 13.23 | 3.99 |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz | 924 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,812 gflops | 2,657 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 1280 |
| Texture fill rate | 56.64 GTexel / s | 83.04 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 81 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2,940 million | 5,200 million |
| CUDA cores | 1280 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort, DP DP DP DP | No outputs |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | 1 | |
| G-SYNC support | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA аnalog display support | 1 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 201 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Laptop size | large | |
| SLI options | 1 | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory type | 128 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Memory bandwidth | 120 GB / s | |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Desktop Management | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro M2000 with others
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8530M
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 970M
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
NVIDIANVS 810
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M620 Mobile
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
AMDRadeon Instinct MI25
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
NVIDIAT1000
