Quadro M2000M vs GeForce GTX 960A

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 960A with Quadro M2000M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 960A
2015
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
8.99
+0.4%

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking494496
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.2411.19
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameGM107GM107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date13 March 2015 (9 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 cores640640
Core clock speed1029 MHz1029 MHz
Boost clock speed1085 MHz1098 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate43.4043.92
Floating-point processing power1.389 TFLOPS1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4040

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
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth80.19 GB/s80 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
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
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.126+
CUDA5.05.0

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 960A 8.99
+0.4%
M2000M 8.95

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 960A 3464
+0.4%
M2000M 3450

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 HD35−40
−2.9%
36
+2.9%
4K10−12
−10%
11
+10%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low 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%

Full HD
Medium Preset

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%

Full HD
High Preset

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%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

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%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
High Preset

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%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
High Preset

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%

4K
Ultra Preset

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%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how GTX 960A and M2000M compete in popular games:

  • M2000M is 3% faster in 1080p
  • M2000M is 10% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.99 8.95
Recency 13 March 2015 3 December 2015
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 55 Watt

GTX 960A has a 0.4% higher aggregate performance score.

M2000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 36.4% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 960A and Quadro M2000M.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 960A is a notebook graphics 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 960A
GeForce GTX 960A
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.


3.2 18 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960A 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 960A or Quadro M2000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.