Quadro M2000M vs GeForce GTX 690
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 690 with Quadro M2000M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 690 outperforms M2000M by an impressive 62% 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 | 414 | 551 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.31 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.38 | 11.38 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 3 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 3 December 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 3072 ×2 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 1029 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1019 MHz | 1098 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 130.4 ×2 | 43.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.13 TFLOPS ×2 | 1.405 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 ×2 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 ×2 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 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 | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 ×2 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512-bit (256-bit per GPU) ×2 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384 GB/s ×2 | 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 | Two Dual Link DVI-I. One Dual link DVI-D. One Mini-Displayport 1.2 | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | Yes (via dongle) | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no 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 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 | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 HD | 55−60
+52.8%
| 36
−52.8%
|
| 4K | 16−18
+45.5%
| 11
−45.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 18.16 | no data |
| 4K | 62.44 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+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 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+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 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+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%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+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%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+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%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| 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 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.17 | 8.12 |
| Recency | 3 May 2012 | 3 December 2015 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 55 Watt |
GTX 690 has a 62.2% 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 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.
