T2000 Max-Q vs M5000M

#ad
Buy
VS

General info

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

Place in performance ranking284285
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money7.41no data
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code nameGM204N19P-Q3 MAX-Q
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date2 October 2015 (8 years old)27 May 2019 (4 years old)
Current price$468 no data
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Technical specs

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 cores1,5361024
Core clock speed962 MHz930 / 1200 MHz
Boost clock speed1051 MHz1500 / 1620 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt35 - 40 Watt
Texture fill rate93.60103.7
Floating-point performance2,995 gflopsno data

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro M5000M and Quadro T2000 Max-Q 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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

Memory

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 amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 MHz8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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

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 support

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA5.27.5

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.

M5000M 17.88
+0.1%
T2000 Max-Q 17.87

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%

M5000M 6929
+0%
T2000 Max-Q 6926

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%

M5000M 11845
+3.4%
T2000 Max-Q 11461

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 3% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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%

M5000M 9228
+11.7%
T2000 Max-Q 8262

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 12% 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%

M5000M 63738
+55.1%
T2000 Max-Q 41106

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 55% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

M5000M 324161
+331%
T2000 Max-Q 75193

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 331% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M5000M 71
+40.6%
T2000 Max-Q 51

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 41% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M5000M 103
+5.7%
T2000 Max-Q 97

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 6% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M5000M 88
+17.3%
T2000 Max-Q 75

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 17% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M5000M 97
+6.9%
T2000 Max-Q 91

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 7% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M5000M 82
T2000 Max-Q 89
+8.9%

T2000 Max-Q outperforms M5000M by 9% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M5000M 32
+0.3%
T2000 Max-Q 32

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M5000M 44
+9.4%
T2000 Max-Q 40

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 9% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M5000M 7
T2000 Max-Q 7

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M5000M 44
+9.4%
T2000 Max-Q 40

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 9% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M5000M 71
+40.6%
T2000 Max-Q 51

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 41% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M5000M 97
+6.9%
T2000 Max-Q 91

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 7% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M5000M 103
+5.7%
T2000 Max-Q 97

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 6% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M5000M 87
+17.3%
T2000 Max-Q 75

M5000M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by 17% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M5000M 82
T2000 Max-Q 89
+8.8%

T2000 Max-Q outperforms M5000M by 9% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M5000M 32
+0.3%
T2000 Max-Q 32

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M5000M 7.1
T2000 Max-Q 7.1

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 HD84
+44.8%
58
−44.8%
1440p24−27
−8.3%
26
+8.3%
4K35−40
−8.6%
38
+8.6%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−43.2%
53
+43.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+1.7%
60−65
−1.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
−18.4%
58
+18.4%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−47.4%
56
+47.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−21.6%
45
+21.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+1.7%
60−65
−1.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
−12.2%
55
+12.2%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−17.9%
33
+17.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−18.4%
45
+18.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 67
+6.3%
63
−6.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+48%
25
−48%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+1.7%
60−65
−1.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
−2%
50
+2%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 38
+15.2%
33
−15.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hitman 3 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how M5000M and T2000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • M5000M is 44.8% faster than T2000 Max-Q

1440p resolution:

  • T2000 Max-Q is 8.3% faster than M5000M

4K resolution:

  • T2000 Max-Q is 8.6% faster than M5000M

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M5000M is 48% faster than the T2000 Max-Q.
  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the T2000 Max-Q is 47.4% faster than the M5000M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M5000M is ahead in 6 tests (9%)
  • T2000 Max-Q is ahead in 8 tests (12%)
  • there's a draw in 54 tests (79%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 17.88 17.87
Recency 2 October 2015 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 35 Watt

We couldn't decide between Quadro M5000M and Quadro T2000 Max-Q. The differences in performance seem too small.


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

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M5000M
Quadro M5000M
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
Quadro T2000 Max-Q

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 126 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro M5000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 51 vote

Rate NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.