Quadro M2000M vs GeForce GTX 690

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 690 with Quadro M2000M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 690
2012
4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 GDDR5, 300 Watt
14.24
+59.1%

GTX 690 outperforms M2000M by an impressive 59% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking374496
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.48no data
Power efficiency3.2611.19
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameGK104GM107
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date3 May 2012 (12 years ago)3 December 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores3072 ×2640
Core clock speed915 MHz1029 MHz
Boost clock speed1019 MHz1098 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate130.4 ×243.92
Floating-point processing power3.13 TFLOPS ×21.405 TFLOPS
ROPs32 ×216
TMUs128 ×240

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length279 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 ×24 GB
Memory bus width512-bit (256-bit per GPU) ×2128 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 GB/s ×280 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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVI-I. One Dual link DVI-D. One Mini-Displayport 1.2No outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMIYes (via dongle)-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Display Portno data1.2
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+-
3D Gaming+-
Optimus-+
3D Vision Live+-
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.24.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.126+
CUDA+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.

GTX 690 14.24
+59.1%
M2000M 8.95

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
    • GeekBench 5 OpenCL
    • GeekBench 5 Vulkan
    • GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 690 5485
+59%
M2000M 3450

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 690 13160
+217%
M2000M 4157

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 690 18201
+85.2%
M2000M 9828

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GTX 690 14979
+56.6%
M2000M 9564

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

GTX 690 12263
+17.5%
M2000M 10438

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:

Full HD55−60
+52.8%
36
−52.8%
4K16−18
+45.5%
11
−45.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p18.16no data
4K62.44no data

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Atomic Heart 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Atomic Heart 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30
+0%
30
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+0%
23
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+0%
9
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how GTX 690 and M2000M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 690 is 53% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 690 is 45% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.24 8.95
Recency 3 May 2012 3 December 2015
Power consumption (TDP) 300 Watt 55 Watt

GTX 690 has a 59.1% higher aggregate performance score.

M2000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and 445.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 690 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 690 is a desktop card while Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690
GeForce GTX 690
NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
Quadro M2000M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9
208 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 690 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6
507 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 690 or Quadro M2000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.