FirePro M2000 vs GeForce GTX 280M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280M with FirePro M2000, including specs and performance data.
280M outperforms M2000 by a substantial 34% 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 | 1050 | 1155 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.41 | 2.38 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | G92B | Turks |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 3 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 1 July 2012 (13 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 | 128 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 37.44 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3745 TFLOPS | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 562 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 24 |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | n/a |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Form factor | no data | chip-down |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 950 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 GB/s | 25.6 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 | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGA | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 12−14
+33.3%
| 9
−33.3%
|
| Full HD | 21−24
+31.3%
| 16
−31.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+9.7%
|
30−35
−9.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+9.7%
|
30−35
−9.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+9.7%
|
30−35
−9.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GTX 280M and FirePro M2000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 280M is 33% faster in 900p
- GTX 280M is 31% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 280M is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 280M performs better in 32 tests (84%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (16%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.37 | 1.02 |
| Recency | 3 March 2009 | 1 July 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 33 Watt |
GTX 280M has a 34% higher aggregate performance score.
FirePro M2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 38% more advanced lithography process, and 127% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 280M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 280M is a notebook graphics card while FirePro M2000 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.
