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
GPU 1
GPU 2
3462
1299
PassMark - G2D Mark
GPU 1
GPU 2
339
62
Geekbench - OpenCL
GPU 1
GPU 2
8148
21396
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)
GPU 1
GPU 2
3715
2697
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)
GPU 1
GPU 2
3355
3325
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)
GPU 1
GPU 2
3715
2697
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)
GPU 1
GPU 2
3355
3325
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