Quadro T2000 Mobile vs GeForce 845M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 845M with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T2000 Mobile outperforms 845M by a whopping 438% 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 | 756 | 312 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.19 | 24.21 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM108 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 26 August 2015 (10 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (6 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 | 384 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1071 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1176 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 37.63 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.9032 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 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 | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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.
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 | 22
−400%
| 110−120
+400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−693%
|
110−120
+693%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−322%
|
35−40
+322%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−479%
|
80−85
+479%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−693%
|
110−120
+693%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−482%
|
60−65
+482%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
−410%
|
100−110
+410%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−365%
|
75−80
+365%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−578%
|
60−65
+578%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−322%
|
35−40
+322%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−393%
|
70−75
+393%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−184%
|
140−150
+184%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−479%
|
80−85
+479%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−693%
|
110−120
+693%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−258%
|
230−240
+258%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−233%
|
110−120
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−482%
|
60−65
+482%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
−410%
|
100−110
+410%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−365%
|
75−80
+365%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−578%
|
60−65
+578%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−555%
|
70−75
+555%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−322%
|
35−40
+322%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−500%
|
40−45
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−393%
|
70−75
+393%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−400%
|
55−60
+400%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−184%
|
140−150
+184%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−479%
|
80−85
+479%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−233%
|
110−120
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−482%
|
60−65
+482%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−365%
|
75−80
+365%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−322%
|
35−40
+322%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−393%
|
70−75
+393%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−400%
|
55−60
+400%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−184%
|
140−150
+184%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 20−22
−410%
|
100−110
+410%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−422%
|
140−150
+422%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−1033%
|
30−35
+1033%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−490%
|
170−180
+490%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−400%
|
180−190
+400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−633%
|
40−45
+633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−433%
|
45−50
+433%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−517%
|
110−120
+517%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−509%
|
65−70
+509%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1000%
|
21−24
+1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−750%
|
30−35
+750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−400%
|
20−22
+400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−400%
|
20−22
+400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how GeForce 845M and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is 400% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 1150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile performs better in 58 tests (88%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (12%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.36 | 18.06 |
| Recency | 26 August 2015 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 60 Watt |
GeForce 845M has 33.3% lower power consumption.
T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 437.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 845M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 845M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
