Quadro M2000M vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti

Place in the ranking	520	491
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.84	no data
Power efficiency	3.23	11.24
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	GF114	GM107
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	25 January 2011 (13 years ago)	3 December 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	640
Core clock speed	823 MHz	1029 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1098 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	52.67	43.92
Floating-point processing power	1.263 TFLOPS	1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	64	40

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	229 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1002 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	128.3 GB/s	80 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Display Port	no data	1.2

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	-	+
3D Vision Pro	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	+
CUDA	2.1	5.0

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.

GTX 560 Ti 7.96

M2000M 8.96
+12.6%

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.

GTX 560 Ti 3059

M2000M 3446
+12.7%

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.

GTX 560 Ti 4013

M2000M 5143
+28.2%

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.

GTX 560 Ti 15494

M2000M 20567
+32.7%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 560 Ti 3470

M2000M 4157
+19.8%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 560 Ti 10723
+9.4%

M2000M 9805

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	63 −11.1%	70−75 +11.1%
Full HD	63 +80%	35 −80%
4K	10−12 −20%	12 +20%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.95	no data
4K	24.90	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Elden Ring	21−24 −13.6%	24−27 +13.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −11.5%	27−30 +11.5%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −12.5%	35−40 +12.5%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −14.3%	24−27 +14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −9.1%	24−27 +9.1%
Valorant	27−30 −18.5%	30−35 +18.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −11.5%	27−30 +11.5%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Dota 2	27−30 +40%	20 −40%
Elden Ring	21−24 −13.6%	24−27 +13.6%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −11.8%	35−40 +11.8%
Fortnite	45−50 −12.8%	50−55 +12.8%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −12.5%	35−40 +12.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 −7.1%	30 +7.1%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −14.3%	24−27 +14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 −11.1%	70−75 +11.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −9.1%	24−27 +9.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −12.5%	27−30 +12.5%
Valorant	27−30 −18.5%	30−35 +18.5%
World of Tanks	120−130 −10%	130−140 +10%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −11.5%	27−30 +11.5%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Dota 2	27−30 −14.3%	30−35 +14.3%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −11.8%	35−40 +11.8%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −12.5%	35−40 +12.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 −11.1%	70−75 +11.1%
Valorant	27−30 −18.5%	30−35 +18.5%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Elden Ring	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Grand Theft Auto V	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −7.5%	40−45 +7.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
World of Tanks	55−60 −14%	65−70 +14%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −21.4%	16−18 +21.4%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −11.8%	18−20 +11.8%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −18.8%	18−20 +18.8%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Valorant	20−22 −10%	21−24 +10%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Elden Ring	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 −13%	24−27 +13%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Fortnite	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Valorant	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%

This is how GTX 560 Ti and M2000M compete in popular games:

M2000M is 11% faster in 900p
GTX 560 Ti is 80% faster in 1080p
M2000M is 20% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 560 Ti is 40% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the M2000M is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 560 Ti is ahead in 1 test (2%)
M2000M is ahead in 56 tests (89%)
there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.96	8.96
Recency	25 January 2011	3 December 2015
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	55 Watt

M2000M has a 12.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 209.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 Ti is a desktop card while Quadro M2000M 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.