NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M 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: GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- Around 14% higher core clock speed: 1200 MHz vs 1050 MHz
- 1543.2x more texture fill rate: 103.7 GTexel/s vs 67.2 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 88% lower typical power consumption: 40 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 2.6x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 41240 vs 16049
- Around 7% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 431 vs 402
- Around 25% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6927 vs 5526
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 vs 18 August 2015 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz vs 1050 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 103.7 GTexel/s vs 67.2 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41240 vs 16049 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 431 vs 402 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6927 vs 5526 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
- 2.5x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective)
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7779 vs 7682
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7779 vs 7682
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7779 vs 7682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7779 vs 7682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 vs 3703 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 vs 3703 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 vs 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 vs 3356 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M |
|---|---|---|
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7682 | 7779 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7682 | 7779 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3703 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3703 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3360 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3360 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41240 | 16049 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 431 | 402 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6927 | 5526 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 82.563 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1266.506 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.91 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 70.779 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 252.607 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Code name | TU117 | GM204 |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 18 August 2015 |
| Place in performance rating | 381 | 495 |
| Type | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 103.7 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 6.636 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.318 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1024 | 1,024 |
| Pixel fill rate | 51.84 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 103.7 GTexel/s | 67.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 4700 million | 5,200 million |
| Floating-point performance | 2,150 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Width | IGP | |
| Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.0 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 160 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) | 5012 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q with others
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon X1800 GTO²
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon X1900 GT
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon HD 2900 PRO
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon R9 280X
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAQuadro P3000
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon RX 5300M
