NVIDIA Quadro M2000M vs AMD Radeon HD 6950
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and AMD Radeon HD 6950 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 M2000M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 11 month(s) later
- Around 37% higher boost clock speed: 1098 MHz vs 800 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 9.1x lower typical power consumption: 55 Watt vs 500 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- 4x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 1250 MHz
- Around 33% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3461 vs 2608
- Around 33% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 8148 vs 6105
- 2.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 47.281 vs 16.999
- 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.5 vs 1.659
- Around 3% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.048 vs 49.698
- Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4920 vs 3652
- Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 2523
- Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4920 vs 3652
- Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 2523
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 3 December 2015 vs 14 December 2010 |
| Boost clock speed | 1098 MHz vs 800 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt vs 500 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 1250 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3461 vs 2608 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8148 vs 6105 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.281 vs 16.999 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.5 vs 1.659 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.048 vs 49.698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4920 vs 3652 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 2523 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4920 vs 3652 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 2523 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 6950
- Around 60% higher texture fill rate: 70.4 GTexel / s vs 43.92 GTexel / s
- 2.2x more pipelines: 1408 vs 640
- Around 60% better floating-point performance: 2,252.8 gflops vs 1,405 gflops
- Around 29% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 439 vs 340
- Around 15% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 899.056 vs 782.113
- Around 45% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 251.203 vs 172.896
- 3.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 11657 vs 3355
- 3.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 11657 vs 3355
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 70.4 GTexel / s vs 43.92 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1408 vs 640 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,252.8 gflops vs 1,405 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 439 vs 340 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 899.056 vs 782.113 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 251.203 vs 172.896 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 11657 vs 3355 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 11657 vs 3355 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 6950
| 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 M2000M | AMD Radeon HD 6950 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3461 | 2608 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 340 | 439 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8148 | 6105 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.281 | 16.999 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 782.113 | 899.056 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.5 | 1.659 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.048 | 49.698 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 172.896 | 251.203 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4920 | 3652 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 2523 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 11657 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4920 | 3652 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 2523 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 11657 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | AMD Radeon HD 6950 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | TeraScale 3 |
| Code name | GM107 | Cayman |
| Launch date | 3 December 2015 | 14 December 2010 |
| Place in performance rating | 718 | 721 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Design | AMD Radeon HD 6000 Series | |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | |
| Price now | $89.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 45.34 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1098 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | |
| Floating-point performance | 1,405 gflops | 2,252.8 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 1408 |
| Texture fill rate | 43.92 GTexel / s | 70.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt | 500 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | 2,640 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | large | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
| Bus support | PCIe 2.0 x16 | |
| Length | 267 mm | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 11 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| CrossFire | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro M2000M with others
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
ATIRadeon X300 SE
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6100 + nForce 400
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 6950
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 6850 X2
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8950 OEM
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
AMDRadeon Pro 555
