Quadro T2000 Mobile vs 4000M
Aggregate performance score
T2000 Mobile outperforms 4000M by a whopping 502% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 693 | 250 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.98 | 4.70 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | Fermi | N19P-Q3 |
| 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 |
| Current price | $118 (0.3x MSRP) | $2221 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
T2000 Mobile has 380% better value for money than Quadro 4000M.
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 | 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 performance | 638.4 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro 4000M and Quadro T2000 Mobile 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 | 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 | 1200 MHz | 8000 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 graphics 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 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.
T2000 Mobile outperforms 4000M by 502% 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%
T2000 Mobile outperforms 4000M by 501% 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%
T2000 Mobile outperforms 4000M by 546% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−720%
|
40−45
+720%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−871%
|
65−70
+871%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−333%
|
50−55
+333%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−714%
|
55−60
+714%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−415%
|
65−70
+415%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−513%
|
45−50
+513%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−300%
|
65−70
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−1140%
|
60−65
+1140%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−522%
|
55−60
+522%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−362%
|
60−65
+362%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−850%
|
35−40
+850%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−720%
|
40−45
+720%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−871%
|
65−70
+871%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−333%
|
50−55
+333%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−714%
|
55−60
+714%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−415%
|
65−70
+415%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−513%
|
45−50
+513%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−300%
|
65−70
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−1140%
|
60−65
+1140%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−522%
|
55−60
+522%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−362%
|
60−65
+362%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−850%
|
35−40
+850%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−720%
|
40−45
+720%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−333%
|
50−55
+333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−415%
|
65−70
+415%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−300%
|
65−70
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−1140%
|
60−65
+1140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−850%
|
35−40
+850%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−522%
|
55−60
+522%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−950%
|
40−45
+950%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−2100%
|
21−24
+2100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−350%
|
27−30
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−700%
|
40−45
+700%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−425%
|
40−45
+425%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−667%
|
21−24
+667%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−273%
|
40−45
+273%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−667%
|
21−24
+667%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 14−16 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−667%
|
21−24
+667%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−300%
|
20−22
+300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 3400% faster than the Quadro 4000M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, T2000 Mobile surpassed Quadro 4000M in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.43 | 20.65 |
| 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 |
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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
