Quadro M2000 vs TITAN V
Aggregate performance score
We've compared TITAN V with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.
TITAN V outperforms M2000 by a whopping 326% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 111 | 491 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.10 | 1.58 |
| Power efficiency | 12.58 | 9.85 |
| Architecture | Volta (2017−2020) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GV100 | GM206 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 December 2017 (8 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | $437.75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
TITAN V has 159% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 5120 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1455 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 21,100 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 465.6 | 55.82 |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.9 TFLOPS | 1.786 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 32 |
| TMUs | 320 | 48 |
| Tensor Cores | 640 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 7.5 MB | 288 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4.5 MB | 1024 KB |
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 | 267 mm | 201 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 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 | HBM2 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 3072 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 848 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 651.3 GB/s | Up to 106 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| HDMI | + | - |
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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 7.0 | 5.2 |
| DLSS | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 1440p | 152
+334%
| 35−40
−334%
|
| 4K | 82
+356%
| 18−20
−356%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1440p | 19.73
−57.8%
| 12.51
+57.8%
|
| 4K | 36.57
−50.4%
| 24.32
+50.4%
|
- Quadro M2000 has 58% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Quadro M2000 has 50% lower cost per frame in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.95 | 9.62 |
| Recency | 7 December 2017 | 8 April 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
TITAN V has a 325.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro M2000, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.
The TITAN V is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that TITAN V is a desktop graphics card while Quadro M2000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
