Quadro 2000M vs M1000M
Aggregated performance score
M1000M outperforms 2000M by a whopping 267% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 499 | 842 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.83 | 0.26 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Fermi |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 October 2015 (8 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $200.89 | $46.56 |
| Current price | $706 (3.5x MSRP) | $135 (2.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
M1000M has 219% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.
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 | 512 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 993 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1072 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.78 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,017 gflops | 422.4 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro M1000M and Quadro 2000M 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-A (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB/4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 28.8 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 |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.0 | 2.1 |
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.
M1000M outperforms 2000M by 267% 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%
M1000M outperforms 2000M by 268% 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%
M1000M outperforms 2000M by 235% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
M1000M outperforms 2000M by 148% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
M1000M outperforms 2000M by 243% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
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 | 39
+2.6%
| 38
−2.6%
|
| 4K | 13
+333%
| 3−4
−333%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+90.9%
|
10−12
−90.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+90.9%
|
10−12
−90.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how M1000M and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:
- M1000M is 3% faster in 1080p
- M1000M is 333% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the M1000M is 1800% faster than the Quadro 2000M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, M1000M surpassed Quadro 2000M in all 47 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.42 | 2.02 |
| Recency | 2 October 2015 | 22 February 2011 |
| Cost | $200.89 | $46.56 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 55 Watt |
The Quadro M1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M 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.
