GeForce GTX 960M vs Quadro M2000M
GeForce GTX 960M
Popular choices:
Quadro M2000M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce GTX 960M is positioned at rank 35 and the Quadro M2000M is on rank 177, so the GeForce GTX 960M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 960M
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M2000M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M2000M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 960M.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro M2000M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 960M and Quadro M2000M
GeForce GTX 960M
The GeForce GTX 960M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1096 MHz to 1176 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,375 points.
Quadro M2000M
The Quadro M2000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 3 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1029 MHz to 1098 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,410 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 960M scores 3,375 and the Quadro M2000M reaches 3,410 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 960M is built on Maxwell while the Quadro M2000M uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 640 (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 640 (Quadro M2000M). Raw compute: 1.505 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 1.405 TFLOPS (Quadro M2000M). Boost clocks: 1176 MHz vs 1098 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,375 | 3,410+1% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.505 TFLOPS+7% | 1.405 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz+7% | 1098 MHz |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 12 (11_0) (Quadro M2000M). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (4th Gen) (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 4th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M2000M). Decoder: NVDEC (1st Gen) vs PureVideo HD VP6. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264,H.265 (GeForce GTX 960M) vs H.264,HEVC (Quadro M2000M).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (4th Gen) | 4th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) |
| Decoder | NVDEC (1st Gen) | PureVideo HD VP6 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264,H.265 | H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 960M draws 75W versus the Quadro M2000M's 55W — a 30.8% difference. The Quadro M2000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 960M) vs 350W (Quadro M2000M). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 82 vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 55W-27% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 82 | 80°C-2% |
| Perf/Watt | 45.0 | 62.0+38% |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 960M and Quadro M2000M
