Quadro FX 1100 vs Quadro M2000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000M with Quadro FX 1100, including specs and performance data.

M2000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
8.96
+9856%

M2000M outperforms FX 1100 by a whopping 9856% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4911456
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.21no data
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameGM107NV36
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date3 December 2015 (9 years ago)1 April 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$169.75

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 cores640no data
Core clock speed1029 MHz425 MHz
Boost clock speed1098 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million82 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Wattno data
Texture fill rate43.921.700
Floating-point processing power1.405 TFLOPSno data
ROPs164
TMUs404

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)AGP 8x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x Molex

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 typeGDDR5DDR2
Maximum RAM amount4 GB128 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz325 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s10.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputs2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX129.0a
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.51.5 (2.1)
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA5.0-

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.

M2000M 8.96
+9856%
FX 1100 0.09

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.

M2000M 3446
+9746%
FX 1100 35

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 HD35-0−1
4K12-0−1

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Elden Ring 24−27 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 0−1
Metro Exodus 24−27 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 0−1
Valorant 30−35 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Dota 2 20 0−1
Elden Ring 24−27 0−1
Far Cry 5 35−40 0−1
Fortnite 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 30 0−1
Metro Exodus 24−27 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 0−1
Valorant 30−35 0−1
World of Tanks 130−140
+13100%
1−2
−13100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Dota 2 30−35 0−1
Far Cry 5 35−40 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75 0−1
Valorant 30−35 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10−12 0−1
Elden Ring 12−14 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
World of Tanks 65−70 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20 0−1
Metro Exodus 16−18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12 0−1
Valorant 21−24 0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 18−20 0−1
Elden Ring 5−6 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20 0−1
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 18−20 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−12 0−1
Fortnite 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−12 0−1
Valorant 9−10 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.96 0.09
Recency 3 December 2015 1 April 2004
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 130 nm

M2000M has a 9855.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro FX 1100 is a workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

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


NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
Quadro M2000M
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1100
Quadro FX 1100

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


3.6 501 vote

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Quadro FX 1100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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