Quadro M2000M vs Arc A350M

Place in the ranking	364	495
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	40.01	11.20
Architecture	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	DG2-128	GM107
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	30 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 cores	768	640
Core clock speed	300 MHz	1029 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	1098 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.20	43.92
Floating-point processing power	1.766 TFLOPS	1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	16
TMUs	48	40
Ray Tracing Cores	6	no 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 size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	80 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 Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
Display Port	no data	1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	-	+
3D Vision Pro	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	12
Shader Model	6.6	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	3.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	+
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Arc A350M 13.57
+62.3%

M2000M 8.36

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 HD	35 +0%	35 +0%
1440p	16 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
4K	9 −33.3%	12 +33.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +56.3%	16−18 −56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 +50%	18−20 −50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +62.1%	27−30 −62.1%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +56.3%	16−18 −56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 −100%	18−20 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	66 +83.3%	35−40 −83.3%
Forza Horizon 5	32 +45.5%	21−24 −45.5%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +66.7%	24−27 −66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +50%	24−27 −50%
Valorant	56 +64.7%	30−35 −64.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +62.1%	27−30 −62.1%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +56.3%	16−18 −56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	8 −125%	18−20 +125%
Dota 2	38 +90%	20 −90%
Far Cry 5	27 −37%	35−40 +37%
Fortnite	80−85 +52.8%	50−55 −52.8%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +47.2%	35−40 −47.2%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +72.7%	21−24 −72.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	26 −15.4%	30 +15.4%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +66.7%	24−27 −66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +50%	70−75 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +50%	24−27 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +63%	27−30 −63%
Valorant	55−60 +70.6%	30−35 −70.6%
World of Tanks	190−200 +43.9%	130−140 −43.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +62.1%	27−30 −62.1%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +56.3%	16−18 −56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 −200%	18−20 +200%
Dota 2	59 +84.4%	30−35 −84.4%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +43.2%	35−40 −43.2%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +25%	35−40 −25%
Forza Horizon 5	21 −4.8%	21−24 +4.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +50%	70−75 −50%
Valorant	55−60 +70.6%	30−35 −70.6%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10 −10%	10−12 +10%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 −20%	12−14 +20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +212%	40−45 −212%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
World of Tanks	100−110 +56.9%	65−70 −56.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +70.6%	16−18 −70.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +84.2%	18−20 −84.2%
Forza Horizon 4	37 +94.7%	18−20 −94.7%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +76.9%	12−14 −76.9%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +100%	16−18 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%
Valorant	35−40 +63.6%	21−24 −63.6%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Dota 2	11 −72.7%	18−20 +72.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	11 −72.7%	18−20 +72.7%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +65.4%	24−27 −65.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 −72.7%	18−20 +72.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Dota 2	24−27 +36.8%	18−20 −36.8%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +63.6%	10−12 −63.6%
Fortnite	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +72.7%	10−12 −72.7%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Valorant	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%

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

A tie in 1080p
Arc A350M is 78% faster in 1440p
M2000M is 33% faster in 4K

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A350M is 212% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M2000M is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Arc A350M is ahead in 52 tests (83%)
M2000M is ahead in 11 tests (17%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	13.57	8.36
Recency	30 March 2022	3 December 2015
Chip lithography	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	55 Watt

Arc A350M has a 62.3% 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.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.