NVIDIA Quadro M2000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M 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 10 month(s) later
- Around 9% higher core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 944 MHz
- Around 16% higher boost clock speed: 1098 MHz vs 950 MHz
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- 2x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 2500 MHz
- Around 1% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 340 vs 337
- Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 782.113 vs 720.592
- Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 2566
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3355 vs 3337
- Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 2566
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3355 vs 3337
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 3 December 2015 vs 9 January 2015 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz vs 944 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1098 MHz vs 950 MHz |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 2500 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 340 vs 337 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 782.113 vs 720.592 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 2566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 vs 3337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 2566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 vs 3337 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
- Around 68% higher texture fill rate: 73.6 GTexel / s vs 43.92 GTexel / s
- Around 60% higher pipelines: 1024 vs 640
- Around 68% better floating-point performance: 2,355 gflops vs 1,405 gflops
- Around 10% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 55 Watt
- Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3797 vs 3453
- Around 76% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14360 vs 8148
- Around 43% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.59 vs 47.281
- Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.903 vs 3.5
- Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 57.947 vs 51.048
- Around 29% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.296 vs 172.896
- Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5783 vs 4920
- Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5783 vs 4920
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 73.6 GTexel / s vs 43.92 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1024 vs 640 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,355 gflops vs 1,405 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt vs 55 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3797 vs 3453 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14360 vs 8148 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.59 vs 47.281 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.903 vs 3.5 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 57.947 vs 51.048 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 223.296 vs 172.896 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5783 vs 4920 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5783 vs 4920 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
| 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 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3453 | 3797 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 340 | 337 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8148 | 14360 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.281 | 67.59 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 782.113 | 720.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.5 | 3.903 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.048 | 57.947 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 172.896 | 223.296 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4920 | 5783 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 2566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 3337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4920 | 5783 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 2566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 3337 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1831 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Code name | GM107 | GM204 |
| Launch date | 3 December 2015 | 9 January 2015 |
| Place in performance rating | 720 | 721 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1098 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 944 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,405 gflops | 2,355 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 1024 |
| Texture fill rate | 43.92 GTexel / s | 73.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | 5,200 million |
| CUDA cores | 1024 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | 1 | |
| G-SYNC support | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA аnalog display support | 1 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| SLI options | 1 | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB / s | 80 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| SLI | ||
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 6850 X2
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8950 OEM
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 965M
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M vs
AMDRadeon Pro 555
