Quadro M1000M vs M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2000 with Quadro M1000M, including specs and performance data.
Quadro M2000 outperforms M1000M by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 407 | 501 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.29 | 0.88 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) | 2 October 2015 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | $200.89 |
| Current price | $285 (0.7x MSRP) | $706 (3.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro M2000 has 388% better value for money than M1000M.
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 | 768 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz | 1072 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.82 | 31.78 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,812 gflops | 1,017 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro M2000 and Quadro M1000M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 201 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB/4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 106 GB/s | 80 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 | DP DP DP DP | No outputs |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
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 | + | + |
| Mosaic | + | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 5.0 |
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.
M2000 outperforms M1000M by 39% based on our aggregate 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%
M2000 outperforms M1000M by 39% in Passmark.
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%
M2000 outperforms M1000M by 67% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
M2000 outperforms M1000M by 81% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
M2000 outperforms M1000M by 55% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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%
M2000 outperforms M1000M by 42% 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 | 50−55
+38.9%
| 36
−38.9%
|
| 4K | 16−18
+33.3%
| 12
−33.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
This is how Quadro M2000 and M1000M compete in popular games:
- Quadro M2000 is 39% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M2000 is 33% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.32 | 7.42 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 2 October 2015 |
| Cost | $437.75 | $200.89 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB/4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 40 Watt |
The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while Quadro M1000M 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
