Quadro 2000M vs GeForce 9600 GT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9600 GT with Quadro 2000M, including specs and performance data.

9600 GT
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 96 Watt
1.26

2000M outperforms 9600 GT by an impressive 60% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1030879
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.040.28
Power efficiency0.922.55
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameG94GF106
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date21 February 2008 (16 years ago)13 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$179 $46.56

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 2000M has 600% better value for money than 9600 GT.

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 cores64192
Core clock speed650 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors505 million1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)96 Watt55 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate20.8017.60
Floating-point processing power0.208 TFLOPS0.4224 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3232

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 datamedium sized
Bus support16x PCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length229 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth57.6 GB/s28.8 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 ConnectorsHDTVTwo Dual Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+2.1

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

9600 GT 1.26
Quadro 2000M 2.02
+60.3%

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.

9600 GT 487
Quadro 2000M 778
+59.8%

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 HD21−24
−81%
38
+81%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how 9600 GT and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 2000M is 81% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.26 2.02
Recency 21 February 2008 13 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 96 Watt 55 Watt

Quadro 2000M has a 60.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 74.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9600 GT is a desktop card while Quadro 2000M 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.


NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT
GeForce 9600 GT
NVIDIA Quadro 2000M
Quadro 2000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3 2007 votes

Rate GeForce 9600 GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 92 votes

Rate Quadro 2000M 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.