Quadro M2000M vs FirePro D500

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro D500 with Quadro M2000M, including specs and performance data.

FirePro D500
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 274 Watt
10.78
+20.3%

D500 outperforms M2000M by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking429492
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.7111.21
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameTahitiGM107
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date18 January 2014 (11 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 cores1536640
Core clock speed725 MHz1029 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1098 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)274 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate69.6043.92
Floating-point processing power2.227 TFLOPS1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs9640

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 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length279 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount3 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth243.8 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 Connectors6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDINo 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 compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-5.0

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 HD40−45
+14.3%
35
−14.3%
4K14−16
+16.7%
12
−16.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Elden Ring 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30
+0%
30
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
World of Tanks 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Elden Ring 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
World of Tanks 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Elden Ring 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how FirePro D500 and M2000M compete in popular games:

  • FirePro D500 is 14% faster in 1080p
  • FirePro D500 is 17% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.78 8.96
Recency 18 January 2014 3 December 2015
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 274 Watt 55 Watt

FirePro D500 has a 20.3% higher aggregate performance score.

M2000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 398.2% lower power consumption.

The FirePro D500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro D500 is a workstation 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.

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.


AMD FirePro D500
FirePro D500
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.


4 20 votes

Rate FirePro D500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 501 vote

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.