Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs Quadro M2000

Place in the ranking	442	311
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.89	no data
Power efficiency	9.54	30.98
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GM206	TU117
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	8 April 2016 (8 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 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	1024
Core clock speed	796 MHz	1200 MHz
Boost clock speed	1163 MHz	1620 MHz
Number of transistors	2,940 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	40 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.82	103.7
Floating-point processing power	1.786 TFLOPS	3.318 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	48	64

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	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1653 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 106 GB/s	128.0 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 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
CUDA	5.2	7.5

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 10.38

T2000 Max-Q 17.97
+73.1%

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 3989

T2000 Max-Q 6908
+73.2%

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	30−35 −90%	57 +90%
1440p	14−16 −85.7%	26 +85.7%
4K	21−24 −76.2%	37 +76.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	14.59	no data
1440p	31.27	no data
4K	20.85	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	58 +0%	58 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	64 +0%	64 +0%
Valorant	86 +0%	86 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Dota 2	41 +0%	41 +0%
Far Cry 5	69 +0%	69 +0%
Fortnite	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	40 +0%	40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Valorant	45 +0%	45 +0%
World of Tanks	210−220 +0%	210−220 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Dota 2	113 +0%	113 +0%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
World of Tanks	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Valorant	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	46 +0%	46 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Fortnite	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and T2000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

T2000 Max-Q is 90% faster in 1080p
T2000 Max-Q is 86% faster in 1440p
T2000 Max-Q is 76% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.38	17.97
Recency	8 April 2016	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	40 Watt

T2000 Max-Q has a 73.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 87.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while Quadro T2000 Max-Q 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.