Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs FirePro W6150M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W6150M and Quadro T2000 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
T2000 Max-Q outperforms W6150M by a whopping 196% 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 | 652 | 359 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 32.19 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Saturn | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 November 2015 (10 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (7 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1075 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1620 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 51.60 | 103.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.651 TFLOPS | 3.318 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 1024 KB |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 88 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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:
| Full HD | 18−20
−217%
| 57
+217%
|
| 1440p | 8−9
−225%
| 26
+225%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−217%
| 38
+217%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 124
+0%
|
124
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 113
+0%
|
113
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how W6150M and T2000 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- T2000 Max-Q is 217% faster in 1080p
- T2000 Max-Q is 225% faster in 1440p
- T2000 Max-Q is 217% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.64 | 16.72 |
| Recency | 12 November 2015 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
T2000 Max-Q has a 196% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W6150M 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.
