Quadro FX 580 vs Quadro M2000M

Place in the ranking	484	1248
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	11.37	0.73
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM107	G96C
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	3 December 2015 (8 years ago)	9 April 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$199

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	640	32
Core clock speed	1029 MHz	450 MHz
Boost clock speed	1098 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	40 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.92	7.200
Floating-point processing power	1.405 TFLOPS	0.072 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	40	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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	198 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	25.6 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	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
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	+	-
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.

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	5.0	1.1

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 8.97
+2036%

FX 580 0.42

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 3461
+2050%

FX 580 161

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	35 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
4K	10	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

199.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

14−16

0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14	0−1
Battlefield 5	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16	0−1
Far Cry 5	21−24	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +2900%	2−3 −2900%
Hitman 3	16−18	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +2400%	2−3 −2400%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +2900%	2−3 −2900%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14	0−1
Battlefield 5	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16	0−1
Far Cry 5	21−24	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +2900%	2−3 −2900%
Hitman 3	16−18	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +2400%	2−3 −2400%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	72 +2300%	3−4 −2300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +2900%	2−3 −2900%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16	0−1
Far Cry 5	21−24	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +2900%	2−3 −2900%
Hitman 3	16−18	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +2400%	2−3 −2400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +2900%	2−3 −2900%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27
+2400%

1−2

−2400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Far Cry 5	10−11	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Hitman 3	12−14	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20	0−1
Metro Exodus	12−14	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +2750%	2−3 −2750%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7	0−1
Hitman 3	5−6	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +3500%	1−2 −3500%
Metro Exodus	7−8	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	10−12	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

0−1

This is how M2000M and FX 580 compete in popular games:

M2000M is 3400% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.97	0.42
Recency	3 December 2015	9 April 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	40 Watt

M2000M has a 2035.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

FX 580, on the other hand, has 37.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 580 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro FX 580 is a workstation one.

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