CPU
GPU
Quadro M2000M
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 960A
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 Quadro M2000M is positioned at rank 177 and the GeForce GTX 960A is on rank 270, so the Quadro M2000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M2000M
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 960A
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 960A is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro M2000M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro M2000M | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 960A 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 Quadro M2000M and GeForce GTX 960A
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.
GeForce GTX 960A
The GeForce GTX 960A is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1029 MHz to 1085 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,465 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M2000M scores 3,410 and the GeForce GTX 960A reaches 3,465 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M2000M is built on Maxwell while the GeForce GTX 960A uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 640 (Quadro M2000M) vs 640 (GeForce GTX 960A). Raw compute: 1.405 TFLOPS (Quadro M2000M) vs 1.389 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 960A). Boost clocks: 1098 MHz vs 1085 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro M2000M | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,410 | 3,465+2% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.405 TFLOPS+1% | 1.389 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1098 MHz+1% | 1085 MHz |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M2000M | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro M2000M comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 960A has 2 GB. The Quadro M2000M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Quadro M2000M | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (Quadro M2000M) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 960A). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.
| Feature | Quadro M2000M | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 4th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M2000M) vs NVENC 1st Gen (GeForce GTX 960A). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP6 vs NVDEC 1st Gen.
| Feature | Quadro M2000M | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 4th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) | NVENC 1st Gen |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP6 | NVDEC 1st Gen |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC | — |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M2000M draws 55W versus the GeForce GTX 960A's 75W — a 30.8% difference. The Quadro M2000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M2000M) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 960A). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | Quadro M2000M | GeForce GTX 960A |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-27% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | — | 1mm |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 62.0+34% | 46.2 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M2000M and GeForce GTX 960A
