Quadro M2000M vs Radeon Pro WX 7100

Place in the ranking	273	492
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.04	no data
Power efficiency	10.80	11.24
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	Ellesmere	GM107
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	10 November 2016 (8 years ago)	3 December 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$799	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 cores	2304	640
Core clock speed	1188 MHz	1029 MHz
Boost clock speed	1243 MHz	1098 MHz
Number of transistors	5,700 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	179.0	43.92
Floating-point processing power	5.728 TFLOPS	1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	144	40

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 size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	224.0 GB/s	80 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 Connectors	4x DisplayPort	No outputs
Display Port	no data	1.2

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync	+	-
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.

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
CUDA	-	5.0

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.

Pro WX 7100 20.35
+127%

M2000M 8.96

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.

Pro WX 7100 7826
+127%

M2000M 3446

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.

Pro WX 7100 38923
+297%

M2000M 9805

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 HD	75−80 +114%	35 −114%
4K	27−30 +125%	12 −125%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.65	no data
4K	29.59	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +112%	16−18 −112%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +141%	16−18 −141%
Elden Ring	65−70 +160%	24−27 −160%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +121%	27−30 −121%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +112%	16−18 −112%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +141%	16−18 −141%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +139%	35−40 −139%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +129%	24−27 −129%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +95.8%	24−27 −95.8%
Valorant	80−85 +156%	30−35 −156%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +121%	27−30 −121%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +112%	16−18 −112%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +141%	16−18 −141%
Dota 2	70−75 +260%	20 −260%
Elden Ring	65−70 +160%	24−27 −160%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +78.9%	35−40 −78.9%
Fortnite	100−110 +102%	50−55 −102%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +139%	35−40 −139%
Grand Theft Auto V	70−75 +137%	30 −137%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +129%	24−27 −129%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +94.3%	70−75 −94.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +95.8%	24−27 −95.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +137%	27−30 −137%
Valorant	80−85 +156%	30−35 −156%
World of Tanks	230−240 +77.3%	130−140 −77.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +121%	27−30 −121%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +112%	16−18 −112%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +141%	16−18 −141%
Dota 2	70−75 +125%	30−35 −125%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +78.9%	35−40 −78.9%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +139%	35−40 −139%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +94.3%	70−75 −94.3%
Valorant	80−85 +156%	30−35 −156%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	30−35 +191%	10−12 −191%
Elden Ring	30−35 +183%	12−14 −183%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +200%	10−12 −200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +300%	40−45 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +157%	7−8 −157%
World of Tanks	130−140 +112%	65−70 −112%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +141%	16−18 −141%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +189%	18−20 −189%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +174%	18−20 −174%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +188%	16−18 −188%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +155%	10−12 −155%
Valorant	50−55 +141%	21−24 −141%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Dota 2	35−40 +84.2%	18−20 −84.2%
Elden Ring	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +84.2%	18−20 −84.2%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +135%	24−27 −135%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +78.9%	18−20 −78.9%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 +150%	8−9 −150%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Dota 2	35−40 +84.2%	18−20 −84.2%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +136%	10−12 −136%
Fortnite	24−27 +167%	9−10 −167%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +173%	10−12 −173%
Valorant	24−27 +167%	9−10 −167%

This is how Pro WX 7100 and M2000M compete in popular games:

Pro WX 7100 is 114% faster in 1080p
Pro WX 7100 is 125% faster in 4K

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX 7100 is 467% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Pro WX 7100 surpassed M2000M in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	20.35	8.96
Recency	10 November 2016	3 December 2015
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	55 Watt

Pro WX 7100 has a 127.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

M2000M, on the other hand, has 136.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 7100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 7100 is a workstation card while Quadro M2000M 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.