FirePro M2000 vs Quadro P400

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P400 with FirePro M2000, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P400
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
4.13
+290%

P400 outperforms M2000 by a whopping 290% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6841088
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.42no data
Power efficiency9.852.30
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGP107Turks
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date7 February 2017 (7 years ago)1 July 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119.99 no data

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 cores256480
Core clock speed1228 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1252 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,300 million716 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rate20.0312.00
Floating-point processing power0.641 TFLOPS0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs1624

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno datan/a
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Form factorno datachip-down
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1002 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth32.06 GB/s25.6 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 Connectors3x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
StereoOutput3D-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA6.1-

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.

Quadro P400 4.13
+290%
FirePro M2000 1.06

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.

Quadro P400 1649
+288%
FirePro M2000 425

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.

Quadro P400 5627
+382%
FirePro M2000 1168

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:

900p35−40
+289%
9
−289%
Full HD50−55
+257%
14
−257%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.40no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
World of Tanks 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how Quadro P400 and FirePro M2000 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P400 is 289% faster in 900p
  • Quadro P400 is 257% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 37 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.13 1.06
Recency 7 February 2017 1 July 2012
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 33 Watt

Quadro P400 has a 289.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P400 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P400 is a workstation card while FirePro M2000 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 P400
Quadro P400
AMD FirePro M2000
FirePro M2000

Other comparisons

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.


4.1 494 votes

Rate Quadro P400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 4 votes

Rate FirePro M2000 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.