Quadro M2000M vs GeForce GTX 960M
Aggregated performance score
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 455 | 450 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 1.44 | 2.37 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | N16P-GX | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 March 2015 (9 years ago) | 2 October 2015 (8 years ago) |
| Current price | $799 | $363 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
M2000M has 65% better value for money than GTX 960M.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 640 |
| CUDA cores | 640 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1096 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1202 MHz | 1197 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 | 43.92 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,505 gflops | 1,405 gflops |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 960M and Quadro M2000M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | no data |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Supported GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | no data |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | no data |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | no data |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | + |
| BatteryBoost | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| CUDA | + | 5.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 2% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M2000M by 3% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M2000M by 4% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M2000M by 1% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M2000M by 12% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 4% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M2000M by 13% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M2000M by 7% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 132% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 1032% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 1853% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 190% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 15% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 513% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 41% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M2000M by 459% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 41% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.
SPECviewperf 12 - Maya
This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 132% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.
SPECviewperf 12 - Catia
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 190% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.
SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 1032% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.
SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 1853% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.
SPECviewperf 12 - Creo
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 15% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.
SPECviewperf 12 - Medical
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 513% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.
SPECviewperf 12 - Energy
Benchmark coverage: 2%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M2000M by 459% in SPECviewperf 12 - Energy.
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 | 95
+0%
| 95−100
+0%
|
| Full HD | 36
+0%
| 36
+0%
|
| 1440p | 15
+7.1%
| 14−16
−7.1%
|
| 4K | 13
+18.2%
| 11
−18.2%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25
+31.6%
|
18−20
−31.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+27.3%
|
21−24
−27.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27
+17.4%
|
21−24
−17.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+12.9%
|
30−35
−12.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24
+26.3%
|
18−20
−26.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 19
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+13.6%
|
21−24
−13.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 25
+8.7%
|
21−24
−8.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 19
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+4.3%
|
23
−4.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 11
−72.7%
|
18−20
+72.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+4.5%
|
21−24
−4.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 23
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 25
−24%
|
30−35
+24%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 11
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 17
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 15
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+11.1%
|
9
−11.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GTX 960M and M2000M compete in popular games:
- M2000M is 0% faster than GTX 960M in 900p
- M2000M is 0% faster than GTX 960M in 1080p
- GTX 960M is 7.1% faster than M2000M in 1440p
- GTX 960M is 18.2% faster than M2000M in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 960M is 31.6% faster than the M2000M.
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M2000M is 100% faster than the GTX 960M.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 960M is ahead in 16 tests (24%)
- M2000M is ahead in 11 tests (16%)
- there's a draw in 41 test (60%)
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 8.78 | 8.96 |
| Recency | 12 March 2015 | 2 October 2015 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 55 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 960M and Quadro M2000M.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 960M is a notebook graphics 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.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
