RTX A1000 Mobile vs Quadro M2000M

Aggregate performance score

M2000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
8.95

RTX A1000 Mobile outperforms Quadro M2000M by a whopping 158% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking454222
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.41no data
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Ampere (2020−2022)
GPU code nameGM107GA107
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date2 October 2015 (8 years ago)30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Current price$363 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores6402048
Core clock speed1038 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1197 MHz1140 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt95 Watt (35 - 95 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate43.9272.96
Floating-point performance1,405 gflopsno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro M2000M and RTX A1000 Mobile 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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 MHz14000 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s176.0 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 outputsPortable Device Dependent
Display Port1.2no 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.

DirectX1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA5.08.6

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
RTX A1000 Mobile 23.09
+158%

RTX A1000 Mobile outperforms Quadro M2000M by 158% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

M2000M 5143
RTX A1000 Mobile 15135
+194%

RTX A1000 Mobile outperforms Quadro M2000M by 194% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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
RTX A1000 Mobile 58312
+184%

RTX A1000 Mobile outperforms Quadro M2000M by 184% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

M2000M 4157
RTX A1000 Mobile 11321
+172%

RTX A1000 Mobile outperforms Quadro M2000M by 172% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

M2000M 29795
RTX A1000 Mobile 70880
+138%

RTX A1000 Mobile outperforms Quadro M2000M by 138% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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 HD33
−97%
65
+97%
1440p9−10
−178%
25
+178%
4K10
−140%
24−27
+140%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−336%
61
+336%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
−156%
45−50
+156%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−285%
50
+285%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−181%
75−80
+181%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−168%
50−55
+168%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−257%
50
+257%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−107%
55−60
+107%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−163%
60−65
+163%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−139%
70−75
+139%
Hitman 3 20−22
−320%
84
+320%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
−157%
75−80
+157%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−172%
65−70
+172%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−148%
60−65
+148%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
−336%
109
+336%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
−313%
62
+313%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
−156%
45−50
+156%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−154%
33
+154%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−181%
75−80
+181%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−168%
50−55
+168%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−164%
37
+164%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−167%
72
+167%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−163%
60−65
+163%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−139%
70−75
+139%
Hitman 3 20−22
−180%
55−60
+180%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
−157%
75−80
+157%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−172%
65−70
+172%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−148%
60−65
+148%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
−76%
44
+76%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
−270%
85
+270%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
−260%
54
+260%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
−156%
45−50
+156%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−92.3%
25
+92.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−168%
50−55
+168%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−107%
29
+107%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−107%
55−60
+107%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−139%
70−75
+139%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
−157%
75−80
+157%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−172%
65−70
+172%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
−207%
43
+207%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
−73.3%
26
+73.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−148%
60−65
+148%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−159%
40−45
+159%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
−243%
45−50
+243%
Hitman 3 10−12
−200%
30−35
+200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−183%
16−18
+183%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−213%
24−27
+213%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−450%
22
+450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
−182%
30−35
+182%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−179%
35−40
+179%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−181%
45−50
+181%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−147%
45−50
+147%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−267%
40−45
+267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−400%
50−55
+400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
−238%
27−30
+238%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−240%
17
+240%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5 21−24
−100%
40−45
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−271%
24−27
+271%
Hitman 3 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
−189%
24−27
+189%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
−178%
24−27
+178%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−180%
14−16
+180%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Battlefield 5 6−7
−350%
27−30
+350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−191%
30−35
+191%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
−189%
24−27
+189%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−144%
21−24
+144%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−122%
20−22
+122%

This is how M2000M and RTX A1000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX A1000 Mobile is 97% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A1000 Mobile is 178% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A1000 Mobile is 140% faster in 4K

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX A1000 Mobile is 450% faster than the M2000M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, RTX A1000 Mobile surpassed M2000M in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.95 23.09
Recency 2 October 2015 30 March 2022
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 95 Watt

The RTX A1000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while RTX A1000 Mobile 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.

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 RTX A1000 Mobile
RTX A1000 Mobile

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.


3.6 446 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 81 vote

Rate RTX A1000 Mobile 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.