NVS 5400M vs Quadro M2000

Place in the ranking	438	954
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.46	no data
Power efficiency	9.54	3.20
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GM206	GF108
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	8 April 2016 (8 years ago)	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$437.75	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 cores	768	96
Core clock speed	796 MHz	660 MHz
Boost clock speed	1163 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,940 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.82	10.56
Floating-point processing power	1.786 TFLOPS	0.2534 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	48	16

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	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM
Length	201 mm	no data
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	no data
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	128 Bit	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1653 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 106 GB/s	28.8 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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	4x DisplayPort	No outputs
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Desktop Management	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.2	+

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 M2000 10.35
+539%

NVS 5400M 1.62

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 M2000 3995
+539%

NVS 5400M 625

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.

Quadro M2000 14526
+602%

NVS 5400M 2070

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

100−110
+525%

−525%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.38

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

1440p
High Preset

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

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and NVS 5400M compete in popular games:

Quadro M2000 is 525% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 51 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.35	1.62
Recency	8 April 2016	1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	35 Watt

Quadro M2000 has a 538.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 5400M, on the other hand, has 114.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 5400M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while NVS 5400M is a mobile workstation one.

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