Quadro M2000M vs Arc A350M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A350M with Quadro M2000M, including specs and performance data.

Arc A350M
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 25 Watt
14.47
+62.2%

Arc A350M outperforms M2000M by an impressive 62% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking366496
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency39.9411.19
ArchitectureGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameDG2-128GM107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date30 March 2022 (2 years ago)3 December 2015 (9 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores768640
Core clock speed300 MHz1029 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHz1098 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate55.2043.92
Floating-point processing power1.766 TFLOPS1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs2416
TMUs4840
Ray Tracing Cores6no data

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s80 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12
Shader Model6.65.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan1.3+
CUDA-5.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

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.

Arc A350M 14.47
+62.2%
M2000M 8.92

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.

Arc A350M 10730
+109%
M2000M 5143

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Arc A350M 31023
+50.8%
M2000M 20567

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Arc A350M 7147
+71.9%
M2000M 4157

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Arc A350M 36315
+21.9%
M2000M 29795

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:

Full HD36
+0%
36
+0%
1440p16
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
4K9
−22.2%
11
+22.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
+58.8%
16−18
−58.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+59.5%
35−40
−59.5%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+11.8%
16−18
−11.8%
Far Cry 5 42
+50%
27−30
−50%
Fortnite 75−80
+52.9%
50−55
−52.9%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+54.1%
35−40
−54.1%
Forza Horizon 5 32
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+66.7%
30−33
−66.7%
Valorant 110−120
+36.9%
80−85
−36.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+59.5%
35−40
−59.5%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+42.7%
130−140
−42.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Dota 2 62
−1.6%
60−65
+1.6%
Far Cry 5 39
+39.3%
27−30
−39.3%
Fortnite 75−80
+52.9%
50−55
−52.9%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+54.1%
35−40
−54.1%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
−15.4%
30
+15.4%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+64.7%
16−18
−64.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+66.7%
30−33
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 43
+87%
23
−87%
Valorant 110−120
+36.9%
80−85
−36.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+59.5%
35−40
−59.5%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
−41.7%
16−18
+41.7%
Dota 2 59
−6.8%
60−65
+6.8%
Far Cry 5 37
+32.1%
27−30
−32.1%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+54.1%
35−40
−54.1%
Forza Horizon 5 21
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+66.7%
30−33
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+35.7%
14
−35.7%
Valorant 110−120
+36.9%
80−85
−36.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+52.9%
50−55
−52.9%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+56.9%
65−70
−56.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
−10%
10−12
+10%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+184%
40−45
−184%
Valorant 140−150
+50.5%
95−100
−50.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+100%
18−20
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Far Cry 5 25
+47.1%
16−18
−47.1%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+65%
20−22
−65%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+61.5%
12−14
−61.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−33
+76.5%
16−18
−76.5%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
−72.7%
18−20
+72.7%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+66.7%
9
−66.7%
Valorant 70−75
+68.2%
40−45
−68.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+111%
9−10
−111%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Dota 2 45−50
+58.1%
30−35
−58.1%
Far Cry 5 12
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

This is how Arc A350M and M2000M compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p
  • Arc A350M is 78% faster in 1440p
  • M2000M is 22% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A350M is 200% faster.
  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the M2000M is 73% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A350M is ahead in 58 tests (87%)
  • M2000M is ahead in 7 tests (10%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.47 8.92
Recency 30 March 2022 3 December 2015
Chip lithography 6 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 55 Watt

Arc A350M has a 62.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 120% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Arc A350M
Arc A350M
NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
Quadro M2000M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 57 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 507 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Arc A350M or Quadro M2000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.