RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell vs FirePro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M2000 with RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, including specs and performance data.
RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell outperforms M2000 by a whopping 7197% 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 | 1146 | 13 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.37 | 18.95 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | Turks | GB202 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 (13 years ago) | 18 March 2025 (less than a year 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 | 480 | 14080 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1740 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2377 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 92,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 1,045.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 66.94 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 176 |
| TMUs | 24 | 440 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 440 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 110 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 13.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 96 MB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Form factor | chip-down | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 1.34 TB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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 | 9
−7122%
| 650−700
+7122%
|
| Full HD | 16
−7088%
| 1150−1200
+7088%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−7043%
|
500−550
+7043%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−7122%
|
650−700
+7122%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−7158%
|
2250−2300
+7158%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−7100%
|
1800−1850
+7100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6900%
|
1050−1100
+6900%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−7043%
|
500−550
+7043%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−7122%
|
650−700
+7122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−6567%
|
400−450
+6567%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−7158%
|
2250−2300
+7158%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6900%
|
1050−1100
+6900%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−7043%
|
500−550
+7043%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−7122%
|
650−700
+7122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−6567%
|
400−450
+6567%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−7158%
|
2250−2300
+7158%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−7150%
|
290−300
+7150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−6567%
|
400−450
+6567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−7173%
|
800−850
+7173%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−6900%
|
210−220
+6900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−6900%
|
210−220
+6900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7043%
|
1000−1050
+7043%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−6900%
|
350−400
+6900%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−6900%
|
140−150
+6900%
|
This is how FirePro M2000 and RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell compete in popular games:
- RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is 7122% faster in 900p
- RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is 7088% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.01 | 73.70 |
| Recency | 1 July 2012 | 18 March 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 300 Watt |
FirePro M2000 has 809.1% lower power consumption.
RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, on the other hand, has a 7197% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M2000 is a mobile workstation graphics card while RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
