Quadro T2000 Mobile vs GeForce GTX 280M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280M with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T2000 Mobile outperforms 280M by a whopping 1289% 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 | 1041 | 320 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.40 | 24.37 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G92B | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 3 March 2009 (16 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 | 128 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 37.44 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3745 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 562 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 64 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 | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 950 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 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 | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGA | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| 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) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−533%
|
35−40
+533%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3950%
|
80−85
+3950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2000%
|
60−65
+2000%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−2450%
|
100−110
+2450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−888%
|
75−80
+888%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−2950%
|
60−65
+2950%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−533%
|
35−40
+533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−640%
|
70−75
+640%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−326%
|
140−150
+326%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3950%
|
80−85
+3950%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−652%
|
230−240
+652%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−547%
|
110−120
+547%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2000%
|
60−65
+2000%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−2450%
|
100−110
+2450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−888%
|
75−80
+888%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−2950%
|
60−65
+2950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−7100%
|
70−75
+7100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−533%
|
35−40
+533%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−2000%
|
40−45
+2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−640%
|
70−75
+640%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−326%
|
140−150
+326%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3950%
|
80−85
+3950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−547%
|
110−120
+547%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2000%
|
60−65
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−888%
|
75−80
+888%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−533%
|
35−40
+533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−640%
|
70−75
+640%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−326%
|
140−150
+326%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−2450%
|
100−110
+2450%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−1467%
|
140−150
+1467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1215%
|
170−180
+1215%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−2900%
|
180−190
+2900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−4300%
|
40−45
+4300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1100%
|
45−50
+1100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−157%
|
35−40
+157%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−1486%
|
110−120
+1486%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−6600%
|
65−70
+6600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−900%
|
20−22
+900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−900%
|
20−22
+900%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High
| 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
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 7100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile performs better in 50 tests (76%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (24%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.30 | 18.06 |
| Recency | 3 March 2009 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 60 Watt |
T2000 Mobile has a 1289.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 358.3% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 280M 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.
