Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Quadro 4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 4000M and Quadro T2000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
T2000 Mobile outperforms 4000M by a whopping 526% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 741 | 268 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.37 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.29 | 23.88 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 336 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.60 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6384 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 64 |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 128.0 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 |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 7.5 |
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.
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 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.
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 | 71
−463%
| 400−450
+463%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.32 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−236%
|
35−40
+236%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
−843%
|
65−70
+843%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−633%
|
65−70
+633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−236%
|
35−40
+236%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−487%
|
85−90
+487%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−833%
|
55−60
+833%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−327%
|
45−50
+327%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2700%
|
80−85
+2700%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−633%
|
65−70
+633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−236%
|
35−40
+236%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−711%
|
70−75
+711%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
−843%
|
65−70
+843%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−278%
|
65−70
+278%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−474%
|
100−110
+474%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−487%
|
85−90
+487%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
−711%
|
70−75
+711%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−833%
|
55−60
+833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−360%
|
130−140
+360%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−327%
|
45−50
+327%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−450%
|
65−70
+450%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2700%
|
80−85
+2700%
|
| World of Tanks | 55−60
−307%
|
230−240
+307%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−633%
|
65−70
+633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−236%
|
35−40
+236%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−711%
|
70−75
+711%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−278%
|
65−70
+278%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−487%
|
85−90
+487%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−360%
|
130−140
+360%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2700%
|
80−85
+2700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
| Elden Ring | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−1600%
|
30−35
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−648%
|
170−180
+648%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
| World of Tanks | 21−24
−509%
|
140−150
+509%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1300%
|
40−45
+1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−613%
|
55−60
+613%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2600%
|
50−55
+2600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−440%
|
50−55
+440%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−589%
|
60−65
+589%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−3000%
|
30−35
+3000%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 4000M and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is 463% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 3200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is ahead in 59 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.32 | 20.77 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 60 Watt |
T2000 Mobile has a 525.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
