Quadro T1000 Max-Q vs Quadro M2000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000M and Quadro T1000 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

M2000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
8.97

T1000 Max-Q outperforms M2000M by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking485312
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.3524.18
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM107TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date3 December 2015 (9 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)

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 cores640896
Core clock speed1029 MHz765 MHz
Boost clock speed1098 MHz1350 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate43.9275.60
Floating-point processing power1.405 TFLOPS2.419 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs4056

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s80 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
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.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA5.07.5

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.

M2000M 8.97
T1000 Max-Q 17.37
+93.6%

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
T1000 Max-Q 6701
+93.6%

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 HD36
−80.6%
65−70
+80.6%
4K12
−75%
21−24
+75%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−92.9%
27−30
+92.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−77.3%
35−40
+77.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−123%
27−30
+123%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−111%
55−60
+111%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−92.9%
27−30
+92.9%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−95.2%
40−45
+95.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−88%
45−50
+88%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−83.3%
110−120
+83.3%
Hitman 3 16−18
−94.1%
30−35
+94.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−72%
85−90
+72%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−114%
60−65
+114%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−88%
45−50
+88%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−90%
55−60
+90%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−41.7%
85−90
+41.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−77.3%
35−40
+77.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−123%
27−30
+123%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−111%
55−60
+111%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−92.9%
27−30
+92.9%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−95.2%
40−45
+95.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−88%
45−50
+88%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−83.3%
110−120
+83.3%
Hitman 3 16−18
−94.1%
30−35
+94.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−72%
85−90
+72%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−114%
60−65
+114%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−88%
45−50
+88%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−90%
55−60
+90%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72
+80%
40−45
−80%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−41.7%
85−90
+41.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−77.3%
35−40
+77.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−123%
27−30
+123%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−92.9%
27−30
+92.9%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−95.2%
40−45
+95.2%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−83.3%
110−120
+83.3%
Hitman 3 16−18
−94.1%
30−35
+94.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−72%
85−90
+72%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−90%
55−60
+90%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
−186%
40−45
+186%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−41.7%
85−90
+41.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−88%
45−50
+88%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−100%
30−35
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
−92.9%
27−30
+92.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−100%
18−20
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−200%
14−16
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−111%
18−20
+111%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−100%
20−22
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−147%
90−95
+147%
Hitman 3 12−14
−75%
21−24
+75%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−84.2%
35−40
+84.2%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−167%
30−35
+167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−240%
30−35
+240%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
−138%
18−20
+138%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−84.2%
100−110
+84.2%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−93.3%
27−30
+93.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−113%
16−18
+113%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−117%
12−14
+117%
Hitman 3 5−6
−160%
12−14
+160%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
−147%
85−90
+147%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−157%
18−20
+157%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
−88.9%
16−18
+88.9%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−66.7%
14−16
+66.7%

This is how M2000M and T1000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • T1000 Max-Q is 81% faster in 1080p
  • T1000 Max-Q is 75% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the M2000M is 80% faster.
  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T1000 Max-Q is 260% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M2000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • T1000 Max-Q is ahead in 71 test (99%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.97 17.37
Recency 3 December 2015 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 50 Watt

T1000 Max-Q has a 93.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T1000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000M in performance tests.


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 T1000 Max-Q
Quadro T1000 Max-Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 496 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 17 votes

Rate Quadro T1000 Max-Q 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.