Quadro M2000M vs GeForce GTX 680M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M SLI with Quadro M2000M, including specs and performance data.
680M SLI outperforms M2000M by an impressive 83% 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 | 385 | 551 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.39 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GTX | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 3 December 2015 (9 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 | 2688 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 1029 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1098 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 43.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.405 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
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 | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 80 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 | no data | No outputs |
| 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | + | 5.0 |
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.
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.
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.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
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 | 133
+90%
| 70−75
−90%
|
| Full HD | 98
+172%
| 36
−172%
|
| 4K | 18−21
+63.6%
| 11
−63.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+97.7%
|
40−45
−97.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+88.2%
|
16−18
−88.2%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+80.6%
|
35−40
−80.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+97.7%
|
40−45
−97.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+88.2%
|
16−18
−88.2%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+87.9%
|
30−35
−87.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+85.2%
|
27−30
−85.2%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+75%
|
35−40
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+88%
|
24−27
−88%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+86.7%
|
30−33
−86.7%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+47.6%
|
80−85
−47.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+80.6%
|
35−40
−80.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+97.7%
|
40−45
−97.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 229
+77.5%
|
120−130
−77.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+88.2%
|
16−18
−88.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+53.2%
|
60−65
−53.2%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+87.9%
|
30−35
−87.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+85.2%
|
27−30
−85.2%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+75%
|
35−40
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+88%
|
24−27
−88%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+90%
|
30
−90%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+86.7%
|
30−33
−86.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+78.3%
|
23
−78.3%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+47.6%
|
80−85
−47.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+80.6%
|
35−40
−80.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+88.2%
|
16−18
−88.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+53.2%
|
60−65
−53.2%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+87.9%
|
30−35
−87.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+85.2%
|
27−30
−85.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+75%
|
35−40
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+86.7%
|
30−33
−86.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+193%
|
14
−193%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+47.6%
|
80−85
−47.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+77.8%
|
60−65
−77.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+232%
|
40−45
−232%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+64.5%
|
90−95
−64.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+126%
|
18−20
−126%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+94.1%
|
16−18
−94.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+85%
|
20−22
−85%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+100%
|
10−12
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+47.4%
|
18−20
−47.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+133%
|
9
−133%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+95.3%
|
40−45
−95.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
This is how GTX 680M SLI and M2000M compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M SLI is 90% faster in 900p
- GTX 680M SLI is 172% faster in 1080p
- GTX 680M SLI is 64% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680M SLI is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 680M SLI surpassed M2000M in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.85 | 8.12 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 3 December 2015 |
GTX 680M SLI has a 82.9% higher aggregate performance score.
M2000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years.
The GeForce GTX 680M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Quadro M2000M 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.
