Quadro FX 1800M vs M2000M

Place in performance ranking	454	1017
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.53	0.03
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2018)	GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code name	GM107	GT215
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	2 October 2015 (8 years ago)	1 February 2010 (14 years ago)
Current price	$363	$309

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M2000M has 8333% better value for money than FX 1800M.

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	640	72
Core clock speed	1038 MHz	560 MHz
Boost clock speed	1197 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.92	13.46
Floating-point performance	1,405 gflops	162 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro M2000M and Quadro FX 1800M 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, GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	5000 MHz	1100 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	35.2 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	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.0	4.1
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	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.

M2000M 8.95
+640%

FX 1800M 1.21

M2000M outperforms FX 1800M by 640% 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%

M2000M 3457
+642%

FX 1800M 466

M2000M outperforms FX 1800M by 642% in Passmark.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

M2000M 20567
+496%

FX 1800M 3452

M2000M outperforms FX 1800M by 496% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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	32 +700%	4−5 −700%
4K	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

14−16

no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +800%	3−4 −800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16	no data
Far Cry 5	21−24	no data
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27	no data
Forza Horizon 4	40−45	no data
Hitman 3	16−18	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40	no data
Metro Exodus	27−30 +800%	3−4 −800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35	no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +800%	3−4 −800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16	no data
Far Cry 5	21−24	no data
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27	no data
Forza Horizon 4	40−45	no data
Hitman 3	16−18	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40	no data
Metro Exodus	27−30 +800%	3−4 −800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30	no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35	no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16	no data
Far Cry 5	21−24	no data
Forza Horizon 4	40−45	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30	no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35	no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18	no data
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16	no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	no data
Far Cry 5	14−16	no data
Forza Horizon 4	16−18	no data
Hitman 3	12−14	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20	no data
Metro Exodus	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6	0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7	no data
Hitman 3	5−6	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9 +800%	1−2 −800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6	no data
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10	no data
Metro Exodus	9−10	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

no data

This is how M2000M and FX 1800M compete in popular games:

M2000M is 700% faster in 1080p
M2000M is 1000% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.95	1.21
Recency	2 October 2015	1 February 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	45 Watt