Quadro M2000 vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.
M2000 outperforms 560 Ti 448 by a significant 27% 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 | 573 | 495 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.49 | 1.59 |
| Power efficiency | 2.78 | 9.88 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GM206 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 29 November 2011 (14 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $289 | $437.75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro M2000 has 7% better value for money than GTX 560 Ti 448.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 448 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 732 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 40.99 | 55.82 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.312 TFLOPS | 1.786 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 288 KB |
| L2 Cache | 640 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 201 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 152.0 GB/s | Up to 106 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 5.2 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.60 | 9.64 |
| Recency | 29 November 2011 | 8 April 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro M2000 has a 26.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 220% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 180% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro M2000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
