Quadro T2000 Mobile vs FirePro M4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M4000 and Quadro T2000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
T2000 Mobile outperforms M4000 by a whopping 401% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 697 | 276 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.66 | 23.85 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Chelsea | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 27 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 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 | 512 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Form factor | MXM-A | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 128.0 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 |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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.
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:
| Full HD | 25
−380%
| 120−130
+380%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−270%
|
35−40
+270%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−367%
|
40−45
+367%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−450%
|
65−70
+450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−270%
|
35−40
+270%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−367%
|
40−45
+367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−418%
|
85−90
+418%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−522%
|
55−60
+522%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−262%
|
45−50
+262%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−740%
|
80−85
+740%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−450%
|
65−70
+450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−270%
|
35−40
+270%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−367%
|
40−45
+367%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−508%
|
70−75
+508%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−224%
|
65−70
+224%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−354%
|
100−110
+354%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−418%
|
85−90
+418%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−462%
|
70−75
+462%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−522%
|
55−60
+522%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−283%
|
130−140
+283%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−262%
|
45−50
+262%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−371%
|
65−70
+371%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−740%
|
80−85
+740%
|
| World of Tanks | 70−75
−237%
|
230−240
+237%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−450%
|
65−70
+450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−270%
|
35−40
+270%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−367%
|
40−45
+367%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−508%
|
70−75
+508%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−224%
|
65−70
+224%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−418%
|
85−90
+418%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−283%
|
130−140
+283%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−740%
|
80−85
+740%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−750%
|
30−35
+750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−518%
|
170−180
+518%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| World of Tanks | 27−30
−383%
|
140−150
+383%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−740%
|
40−45
+740%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−533%
|
55−60
+533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−980%
|
50−55
+980%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−560%
|
30−35
+560%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−4600%
|
45−50
+4600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−350%
|
50−55
+350%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−425%
|
60−65
+425%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−525%
|
24−27
+525%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how FirePro M4000 and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is 380% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 4600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is ahead in 60 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.98 | 19.94 |
| Recency | 27 June 2012 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 60 Watt |
FirePro M4000 has 81.8% lower power consumption.
T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 401% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M4000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
