NVIDIA T400 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA T400 and NVIDIA Quadro M2000 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: 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), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA T400
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- Around 23% higher boost clock speed: 1425 MHz vs 1163 MHz
- 603.8x more texture fill rate: 34.20 GTexel/s vs 56.64 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 17% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 17019 vs 14591
- Around 7% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 58.805 vs 55.048
- Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 785.059 vs 639.056
- Around 7% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.961 vs 3.697
- Around 48% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 53.111 vs 35.796
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 vs 3325
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 vs 3325
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 6 May 2021 vs 8 April 2016 |
| Boost clock speed | 1425 MHz vs 1163 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 34.20 GTexel/s vs 56.64 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 17019 vs 14591 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 58.805 vs 55.048 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 785.059 vs 639.056 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.961 vs 3.697 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 53.111 vs 35.796 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 vs 3325 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 vs 3325 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M2000
- Around 90% higher core clock speed: 796 MHz vs 420 MHz
- 2x more pipelines: 768 vs 384
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- 5.3x more memory clock speed: 6612 MHz vs 1250 MHz, 10 Gbps effective
- Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 225.868 vs 222.15
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5523 vs 5088
- Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3684 vs 2173
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5523 vs 5088
- Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3684 vs 2173
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz vs 420 MHz |
| Pipelines | 768 vs 384 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz vs 1250 MHz, 10 Gbps effective |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 225.868 vs 222.15 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5523 vs 5088 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3684 vs 2173 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5523 vs 5088 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3684 vs 2173 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA T400
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M2000
| 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 T400 | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 17019 | 14591 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 58.805 | 55.048 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 785.059 | 639.056 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.961 | 3.697 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 53.111 | 35.796 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 222.15 | 225.868 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5088 | 5523 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2173 | 3684 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 | 3325 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5088 | 5523 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2173 | 3684 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 | 3325 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4000 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 565 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA T400 | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Code name | TU117 | GM206 |
| Launch date | 6 May 2021 | 8 April 2016 |
| Place in performance rating | 851 | 572 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | |
| Price now | $409.99 | |
| Type | Workstation | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 13.23 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1425 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 420 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 34.20 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 1,094 GFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 384 | 768 |
| Pixel fill rate | 22.80 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 34.20 GTexel/s | 56.64 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 4700 million | 2,940 million |
| Floating-point performance | 1,812 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort, DP DP DP DP |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Form factor | Single-slot | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 200 Watt | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Length | 201 mm | |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.7 (6.4) | 5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | |
| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz, 10 Gbps effective | 6612 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | 128 Bit |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Desktop Management | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA T400 with others
NVIDIAT400 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6800 GT
NVIDIAT400 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 5850
NVIDIAT400 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 760 OEM
NVIDIAT400 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 860M
NVIDIAT400 vs
NVIDIAP106-090
NVIDIAT400 vs
AppleM2 8-core
