Quadro FX 880M vs Quadro 2000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 2000M and Quadro FX 880M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro 2000M
2011
2 GB DDR3, 55 Watt
2.02
+248%

2000M outperforms FX 880M by a whopping 248% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8821204
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.28no data
Power efficiency2.561.16
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGF106GT216
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date13 January 2011 (13 years ago)7 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$46.56 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores19248
Core clock speed550 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate17.608.800
Floating-point processing power0.4224 TFLOPS0.1162 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3216

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)MXM-A (3.0)

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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s25.28 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.11.2

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. 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 2000M 2.02
+248%
FX 880M 0.58

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.

Quadro 2000M 778
+249%
FX 880M 223

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Quadro 2000M 6634
+151%
FX 880M 2639

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 HD37
+94.7%
19
−94.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.26no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Hitman 3 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+63.6%
10−12
−63.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Hitman 3 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+63.6%
10−12
−63.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Hitman 3 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+63.6%
10−12
−63.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how Quadro 2000M and FX 880M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 2000M is 95% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 2000M is 1000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro 2000M is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.02 0.58
Recency 13 January 2011 7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 35 Watt

Quadro 2000M has a 248.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

FX 880M, on the other hand, has 57.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 Quadro 2000M
Quadro 2000M
NVIDIA Quadro FX 880M
Quadro FX 880M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.7 93 votes

Rate Quadro 2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 41 vote

Rate Quadro FX 880M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.