Quadro T2000 Mobile vs GeForce GTX 970M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 970M with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T2000 Mobile outperforms 970M by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 419 | 325 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.55 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.11 | 24.72 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 October 2014 (11 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,560.89 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 924 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 83.04 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.657 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 480 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 1024 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 120 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 136
−32.4%
| 180−190
+32.4%
|
| Full HD | 58
−37.9%
| 80−85
+37.9%
|
| 1440p | 27
−29.6%
| 35−40
+29.6%
|
| 4K | 21
−28.6%
| 27−30
+28.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 44.15 | no data |
| 1440p | 94.85 | no data |
| 4K | 121.95 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−42.9%
|
110−120
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−44.8%
|
40−45
+44.8%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
−42.4%
|
45−50
+42.4%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 27−30
−51.7%
|
40−45
+51.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 66
−22.7%
|
80−85
+22.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−42.9%
|
110−120
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−44.8%
|
40−45
+44.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 46
−39.1%
|
60−65
+39.1%
|
| Fortnite | 163
+59.8%
|
100−110
−59.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61
−29.5%
|
75−80
+29.5%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
−42.4%
|
45−50
+42.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60
−23.3%
|
70−75
+23.3%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−23.9%
|
140−150
+23.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 54
−50%
|
80−85
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−42.9%
|
110−120
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
−22.6%
|
230−240
+22.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−44.8%
|
40−45
+44.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
−22.2%
|
110−120
+22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
−48.8%
|
60−65
+48.8%
|
| Fortnite | 65
−56.9%
|
100−110
+56.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
−49.1%
|
75−80
+49.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49
−46.9%
|
70−75
+46.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24
−75%
|
40−45
+75%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
−42.4%
|
45−50
+42.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
−51%
|
70−75
+51%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
−22.2%
|
55−60
+22.2%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−23.9%
|
140−150
+23.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 49
−65.3%
|
80−85
+65.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−44.8%
|
40−45
+44.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
−22.2%
|
110−120
+22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
−64.1%
|
60−65
+64.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
−119%
|
75−80
+119%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 33
−124%
|
70−75
+124%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−112%
|
55−60
+112%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−23.9%
|
140−150
+23.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 49
−108%
|
100−110
+108%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
−42.4%
|
45−50
+42.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−36.9%
|
140−150
+36.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−54.5%
|
30−35
+54.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
−78.6%
|
24−27
+78.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
−52.3%
|
160−170
+52.3%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−27.8%
|
170−180
+27.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 33
−66.7%
|
55−60
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
−63%
|
40−45
+63%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
−113%
|
45−50
+113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−45%
|
27−30
+45%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 31
−45.2%
|
45−50
+45.2%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
−42.1%
|
27−30
+42.1%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−80%
|
18−20
+80%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
−75%
|
27−30
+75%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−52.2%
|
100−110
+52.2%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 15
−100%
|
30−33
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−80%
|
18−20
+80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−34%
|
65−70
+34%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
−69.2%
|
21−24
+69.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6
−467%
|
30−35
+467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12
−66.7%
|
20−22
+66.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
This is how GTX 970M and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is 32% faster in 900p
- T2000 Mobile is 38% faster in 1080p
- T2000 Mobile is 30% faster in 1440p
- T2000 Mobile is 29% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 970M is 60% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 467% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 970M performs better in 1 test (2%)
- T2000 Mobile performs better in 64 tests (98%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.73 | 19.17 |
| Recency | 7 October 2014 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
T2000 Mobile has a 40% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 970M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 970M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
