NVIDIA Quadro M2000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 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 M2000M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- 2.7x more pipelines: 640 vs 240
- 2.3x better floating-point performance: 1,405 gflops vs 622.1 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 4.3x lower typical power consumption: 55 Watt vs 236 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- 4.5x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 1107 MHz
- 2.7x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3462 vs 1299
- 5.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 339 vs 62
- Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 2697
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3355 vs 3325
- Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 2697
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3355 vs 3325
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 3 December 2015 vs 16 June 2008 |
Pipelines | 640 vs 240 |
Floating-point performance | 1,405 gflops vs 622.1 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt vs 236 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 1107 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3462 vs 1299 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 339 vs 62 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 2697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 vs 3325 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 2697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 vs 3325 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
- Around 26% higher core clock speed: 1296 MHz vs 1029 MHz
- Around 10% higher texture fill rate: 48.2 billion / sec vs 43.92 GTexel / s
- 2.6x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 21396 vs 8148
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1296 MHz vs 1029 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 48.2 billion / sec vs 43.92 GTexel / s |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 21396 vs 8148 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3462 | 1299 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 339 | 62 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8148 | 21396 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.281 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 782.113 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.5 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.048 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 171.268 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4920 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 2697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 3325 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4920 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 2697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 3325 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Maxwell | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | GM107 | GT200 |
Launch date | 3 December 2015 | 16 June 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 698 | 1051 |
Type | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | |
Price now | $522.78 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 2.98 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1098 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 1296 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 1,405 gflops | 622.1 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 640 | 240 |
Texture fill rate | 43.92 GTexel / s | 48.2 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt | 236 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,870 million | 1,400 million |
CUDA cores | 240 | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVDual Link DVI |
Display Port | 1.2 | |
Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | large | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 6-pin & 8-pin |
Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | |
SLI options | 2-way3-way | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Shader Model | 5.0 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 80 GB / s | 141.7 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 512 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 1107 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus | ||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
SLI |