T400 vs Quadro M2000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000M with T400, including specs and performance data.

M2000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
8.96

T400 outperforms M2000M by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking487471
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.1621.47
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM107TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date3 December 2015 (9 years ago)6 May 2021 (3 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 cores640384
Core clock speed1029 MHz420 MHz
Boost clock speed1098 MHz1425 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate43.9234.20
Floating-point processing power1.405 TFLOPS1.094 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4024

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)PCIe 3.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 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 outputs3x mini-DisplayPort
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 8.96
T400 9.40
+4.9%

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 3453
T400 3623
+4.9%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

M2000M 9763
T400 16959
+73.7%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

M2000M 9534
T400 15843
+66.2%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

M2000M 10438
T400 16856
+61.5%

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
+2.9%
35−40
−2.9%
4K12
+0%
12−14
+0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+3.7%
27−30
−3.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+3.7%
27−30
−3.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72
−4.2%
75−80
+4.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+3.6%
55−60
−3.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+2.9%
35−40
−2.9%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how M2000M and T400 compete in popular games:

  • M2000M is 3% faster in 1080p
  • A tie in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.96 9.40
Recency 3 December 2015 6 May 2021
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 30 Watt

M2000M has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

T400, on the other hand, has a 4.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 83.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M2000M and T400.

Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while T400 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 T400
T400

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.


3.6 500 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 381 vote

Rate T400 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.