Quadro M2000 vs GeForce GTX 980 Mobile
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 980 Mobile outperforms Quadro M2000 by 115% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 233 | 404 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 30.29 | 4.05 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) |
| GPU code name | N16E-GXX | GM206 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 September 2014 (9 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.82 | $437.75 |
| Current price | $251 (0.6x MSRP) | $285 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 980 Mobile has 648% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
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 | 2048 | 768 |
| CUDA cores | 2048 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100-200 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 144 billion/sec | 55.82 |
| Floating-point performance | 4,358 gflops | 1,812 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 980 Mobile and Quadro M2000 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 201 mm |
| Width | no data | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | no data |
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 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 6612 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | Up to 106 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | DP DP DP DP |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
| 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.
| 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 | + | no data |
| BatteryBoost | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| CUDA | + | 5.2 |
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 | 99
+120%
| 45−50
−120%
|
| 4K | 45
+150%
| 18−21
−150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40−45
+144%
|
18−20
−144%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+143%
|
30−33
−143%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+150%
|
30−33
−150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 65−70
+117%
|
30−33
−117%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+139%
|
18−20
−139%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40−45
+144%
|
18−20
−144%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+143%
|
30−33
−143%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+150%
|
30−33
−150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 65−70
+117%
|
30−33
−117%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+140%
|
35−40
−140%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+139%
|
18−20
−139%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40−45
+144%
|
18−20
−144%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+143%
|
30−33
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+150%
|
30−33
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+144%
|
18−20
−144%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+139%
|
18−20
−139%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 40−45
+139%
|
18−20
−139%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
This is how GTX 980 Mobile and Quadro M2000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Mobile is 120% faster than Quadro M2000 in 1080p
- GTX 980 Mobile is 150% faster than Quadro M2000 in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.15 | 10.32 |
| Recency | 22 September 2014 | 8 April 2016 |
| Cost | $395.82 | $437.75 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro M2000 is a 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.
