M2000 Slot Quadro M2000M vs Quadro M2000 Select... #ad Buy on Amazon M2000 M3000 SE M4000 M5000 M5000 SE M6000 M6000 24 GB VS Select... #ad Buy on Amazon M1000M M1200 M2000M M2200 M3000M M4000M M5000M M5500 Aggregate performance score We've compared Quadro M2000 with Quadro M2000M, including specs and performance data. Quadro M2000 2016 4 GB 128-bit, 75 Watt 9.09 +17.6% M2000M 2015 4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt 7.73 GTX 1650 GTX 1060 6 GB RTX 3060 RTX 4060 RTX 4070 SUPER RTX 4080 SUPER RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell RX 580 Arc A580 RX 5700 RX 7600 XT RX 7800 XT RX 7900 XTX M2000 outperforms M2000M by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results. Contents Primary details Cost-effectiveness evaluation Detailed specifications Form factor & compatibility VRAM capacity and type Connectivity and outputs Supported technologies API and SDK support Synthetic benchmarks Gaming Pros & cons summary Vote for your favorite Other comparisons Community ratings Comments Share: Address copied to clipboard Quadro M2000 M2000M Primary details GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared. Place in the ranking 488 545 Place by popularity not in top-100 not in top-100 Cost-effectiveness evaluation 1.50 no data Power efficiency 9.76 11.32 Architecture Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) Maxwell (2014−2017) GPU code name GM206 GM107 Market segment Workstation Mobile workstation Release date 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) 3 December 2015 (9 years ago) Launch price (MSRP) $437.75 no data Cost-effectiveness evaluation The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices. no data 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 768 640 Core clock speed 796 MHz 1029 MHz Boost clock speed 1163 MHz 1098 MHz Number of transistors 2,940 million 1,870 million Manufacturing process technology 28 nm 28 nm Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 55 Watt Texture fill rate 55.82 43.92 Floating-point processing power 1.786 TFLOPS 1.405 TFLOPS ROPs 32 16 TMUs 48 40 L1 Cache 288 KB 320 KB L2 Cache 1024 KB 2 MB 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 201 mm no data Width 1" (2.5 cm) no data Supplementary power connectors None 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 128 Bit GDDR5 Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 4 GB Memory bus width 128 Bit 128 Bit Memory clock speed 1653 MHz 1253 MHz Memory bandwidth Up to 106 GB/s 80 GB/s Shared memory no data - 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 4x DisplayPort No outputs Number of simultaneous displays 4 no data 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. Optimus - + 3D Vision Pro + + Mosaic + + nView Display Management no data + nView Desktop Management + no data Optimus no data + API and SDK support List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions. DirectX 12 12 Shader Model 6.4 5.1 OpenGL 4.5 4.5 OpenCL 1.2 1.2 Vulkan 1.1.126 + CUDA 5.2 5.0 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. Quadro M2000 9.09 +17.6% M2000M 7.73 Passmark GeekBench 5 OpenCL GeekBench 5 Vulkan GeekBench 5 CUDA 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 M2000 4020 +17.5% Samples: 1117 M2000M 3420 Samples: 1489 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 M2000 14586 +44.5% M2000M 10097 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. Quadro M2000 14490 +50.4% M2000M 9637 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. Quadro M2000 13100 +25.5% M2000M 10438 Gaming performance Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS. NVIDIA Quadro M2000 satisfies 82% minimum and 67% recommended requirements of all games known to us. 0 50 100 Minimum 0 50 100 Recommended NVIDIA Quadro M2000M satisfies 80% minimum and 66% recommended requirements of all games known to us. 0 50 100 Minimum 0 50 100 Recommended 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 40−45 +11.1% 36 −11.1% 4K 12−14 +9.1% 11 −9.1% Cost per frame, $ 1080p 10.94 no data 4K 36.48 no data FPS performance in popular games Full HD Low Full HD Medium Full HD High Full HD Ultra Full HD Epic 1440p High 1440p Ultra 1440p Epic 4K High 4K Ultra 4K Epic Counter-Strike 2 40−45 +0% 40−45 +0% Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 +0% 16−18 +0% Hogwarts Legacy 14−16 +0% 14−16 +0% Battlefield 5 35−40 +0% 35−40 +0% Counter-Strike 2 40−45 +0% 40−45 +0% Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 +0% 16−18 +0% Far Cry 5 27−30 +0% 27−30 +0% Fortnite 50−55 +0% 50−55 +0% Forza Horizon 4 35−40 +0% 35−40 +0% Forza Horizon 5 24−27 +0% 24−27 +0% Hogwarts Legacy 14−16 +0% 14−16 +0% PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33 +0% 30−33 +0% Valorant 80−85 +0% 80−85 +0% Battlefield 5 35−40 +0% 35−40 +0% Counter-Strike 2 40−45 +0% 40−45 +0% Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130 +0% 120−130 +0% Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 +0% 16−18 +0% Dota 2 60−65 +0% 60−65 +0% Far Cry 5 27−30 +0% 27−30 +0% Fortnite 50−55 +0% 50−55 +0% Forza Horizon 4 35−40 +0% 35−40 +0% Forza Horizon 5 24−27 +0% 24−27 +0% Grand Theft Auto V 30 +0% 30 +0% Hogwarts Legacy 14−16 +0% 14−16 +0% Metro Exodus 16−18 +0% 16−18 +0% PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33 +0% 30−33 +0% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23 +0% 23 +0% Valorant 80−85 +0% 80−85 +0% Battlefield 5 35−40 +0% 35−40 +0% Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 +0% 16−18 +0% Dota 2 60−65 +0% 60−65 +0% Far Cry 5 27−30 +0% 27−30 +0% Forza Horizon 4 35−40 +0% 35−40 +0% Hogwarts Legacy 14−16 +0% 14−16 +0% PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33 +0% 30−33 +0% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14 +0% 14 +0% Valorant 80−85 +0% 80−85 +0% Fortnite 50−55 +0% 50−55 +0% Counter-Strike 2 16−18 +0% 16−18 +0% Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65 +0% 60−65 +0% Grand Theft Auto V 10−12 +0% 10−12 +0% Metro Exodus 9−10 +0% 9−10 +0% PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 +0% 40−45 +0% Valorant 90−95 +0% 90−95 +0% Battlefield 5 18−20 +0% 18−20 +0% Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 +0% 7−8 +0% Far Cry 5 16−18 +0% 16−18 +0% Forza Horizon 4 20−22 +0% 20−22 +0% Hogwarts Legacy 9−10 +0% 9−10 +0% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 +0% 12−14 +0% Fortnite 16−18 +0% 16−18 +0% Counter-Strike 2 2−3 +0% 2−3 +0% Grand Theft Auto V 18−20 +0% 18−20 +0% Hogwarts Legacy 3−4 +0% 3−4 +0% Metro Exodus 4−5 +0% 4−5 +0% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9 +0% 9 +0% Valorant 40−45 +0% 40−45 +0% Battlefield 5 9−10 +0% 9−10 +0% Counter-Strike 2 2−3 +0% 2−3 +0% Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 +0% 2−3 +0% Dota 2 30−33 +0% 30−33 +0% Far Cry 5 8−9 +0% 8−9 +0% Forza Horizon 4 12−14 +0% 12−14 +0% Hogwarts Legacy 3−4 +0% 3−4 +0% PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 +0% 8−9 +0% Fortnite 8−9 +0% 8−9 +0% This is how Quadro M2000 and M2000M compete in popular games: Quadro M2000 is 11% faster in 1080p Quadro M2000 is 9% faster in 4K All in all, in popular games: there's a draw in 66 tests (100%) Select a game to check Quadro M2000 and M2000M in: Select the game: Official system requirements Reviewed graphics cards performance compared to Fortnite system requirements . Quadro M2000 +17.6% M2000M minimum HD Graphics 4000 recommended Radeon R9 280 30 fps @ low 1280 × 720 60 fps @ medium 1920 × 1080 60 fps @ high 1920 × 1080 60 fps @ ultra 1920 × 1080 60 fps @ QHD 2560 × 1440 60 fps @ epic 3840 × 2160 Projected FPS in various settings and resolutions Average frames per second in Fortnite with Quadro M2000 and Quadro M2000M (according to our approximations). Frames per second may vary depending on operating system and other factors. low settings / 720p 150−160 +12.1% low settings / 720p 140−150 −12.1% medium settings / 1080p 95−100 +15.5% medium settings / 1080p 80−85 −15.5% high settings / 1080p 45−50 +20% high settings / 1080p 40−45 −20% ultra settings / 1080p 35−40 +20% ultra settings / 1080p 30−33 −20% QHD / 1440p 21−24 +23.5% QHD / 1440p 16−18 −23.5% 4K / 2160p 9−10 +12.5% 4K / 2160p 8−9 −12.5% Pros & cons summary Performance score 9.09 7.73 Recency 8 April 2016 3 December 2015 Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 55 Watt Quadro M2000 has a 17.6% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months. M2000M, on the other hand, has 36.4% lower power consumption. The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000M in performance tests. Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation one. 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. Quadro M2000 Quadro M2000M Like Like Other comparisons We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider. Quadro M2000 vs Quadro K5000 Quadro M2000M vs Radeon Pro W5500M Quadro M2000 vs FirePro D500 Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB vs 4070 Ti Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB vs 40 GB Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB vs 16-Core GPU Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB vs Quadro M2000 vs M3000M Quadro M2000 vs M1000M Quadro M2000 vs M5100 Quadro M2000 vs K2100M Quadro M2000 vs W4190M Quadro M2000 vs 740M Community ratings Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself. 3.8 227 votes Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5: 1 2 3 4 5 3.7 556 votes Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5: 1 2 3 4 5 Comments Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M2000 or Quadro M2000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site. Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. M2000 Slot memberikan opsi taruhan fleksibel, mulai dari bet kecil untuk pemula hingga bet besar bagi high roller. With 24 slots and a capacity of up to432 TB,The MagStor M2000 is the most economic mass storage available. Send data to secure, affordable, time tested tape-media at up to 300 MB/s per drive. Streamline your backup and archive solution at a price no other form of memory can beat. MagStor Tape Libraries use a standardized driver for software communication making them compatible with almost every software package that supports LTO Tape Libraries.Rest assured that MagStor Tape Libraries will be compatible with your favorite TAR or LTFS software. Select 1 or 2 graphics cards to get a comparison of their gaming performance, benchmarks, and technical specs.
