Quadro FX 2500M vs FirePro M2000

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

FirePro M2000
2012
1024 MB GDDR5
1.09
+94.6%

FirePro M2000 outperforms Quadro FX 2500M by 95% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking10441167
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.02no data
ArchitectureTerascale 2 (2009−2015)G7x (2005−2007)
GPU code nameTurks GLMG71glm
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 July 2012 (11 years ago)29 September 2005 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.99
Current price$387 $126 (1.3x MSRP)

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FirePro M2000 and FX 2500M have a nearly equal value for money.

Technical specs

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 cores48032
Core clock speed500 MHz8 MHz
Boost clock speedno data500 MHz
Number of transistors716 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate12.0012.00
Floating-point performance480.0 gflopsno data

Size and compatibility

Information on FirePro M2000 and Quadro FX 2500M 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 sizemedium sizedlarge
Bus supportn/ano data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-III
Form factorchip-downno data

Memory

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB512 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed3200 MHz1200 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s38.4 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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
StereoOutput3D1no data

API support

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.03.0
OpenGL4.42.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
VulkanN/AN/A

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.

FirePro M2000 1.09
+94.6%
FX 2500M 0.56

FirePro M2000 outperforms Quadro FX 2500M by 95% 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%

FirePro M2000 424
+95.4%
FX 2500M 217

FirePro M2000 outperforms Quadro FX 2500M by 95% in Passmark.

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:

900p9
+125%
4−5
−125%
Full HD16
+100%
8−9
−100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how FirePro M2000 and FX 2500M compete in popular games:

  • FirePro M2000 is 125% faster than FX 2500M in 900p
  • FirePro M2000 is 100% faster than FX 2500M in 1080p

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

  • in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FirePro M2000 is 100% faster than the FX 2500M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FirePro M2000 is ahead in 12 tests (48%)
  • there's a draw in 13 tests (52%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 1.09 0.56
Recency 1 July 2012 29 September 2005
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 45 Watt

The FirePro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.


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

Vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro M2000
FirePro M2000
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M
Quadro FX 2500M

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User Ratings

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 4 votes

Rate FirePro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 4 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

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