Quadro M2000 vs Quadro RTX 4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 and Quadro M2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 4000 outperforms M2000 by a whopping 284% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 109 | 441 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 36.26 | 3.63 |
| Power efficiency | 17.01 | 9.45 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | GM206 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 November 2018 (6 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | $437.75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 4000 has 899% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
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 cores | 2304 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1005 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 222.5 | 55.82 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.119 TFLOPS | 1.786 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 144 | 48 |
| Tensor Cores | 288 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 36 | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 201 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
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 type | GDDR6 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1625 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 416.0 GB/s | Up to 106 GB/s |
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 Connectors | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 5.2 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.71 | 10.34 |
| Recency | 13 November 2018 | 8 April 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 75 Watt |
RTX 4000 has a 284% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro M2000, on the other hand, has 113.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
