OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA Quadro M2000 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£95VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):75 W

NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 10 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA Quadro M2000
4.6/10

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

3.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.6

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 99% of graphics cards
6.2

Value for money

Value for money
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 93%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

2.0

Memory

12%

7.8

Power

11%

6.4

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

▼Worse than 98%
3.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models

3.6

Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (10)
5 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 98%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-quadro-m2000
  • nvidia-quadro-m2000
  • nvidia-quadro-m2000
  • nvidia-quadro-m2000
  • nvidia-quadro-m2000
nvidia-quadro-m2000
nvidia-quadro-m2000
nvidia-quadro-m2000
nvidia-quadro-m2000
nvidia-quadro-m2000
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA Quadro M2000

Based on 5 · 6

Reviewers like its compact size, low power draw and suitability for light gaming, but frame rates disappoint and display outputs divide opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA Quadro M2000

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

2.0

Memory

12%

7.8

Power

11%

6.4

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

3.6
Reviews score
3.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
919 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 919 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 98.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
4,040 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 4,040 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 94.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1,190 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1,190 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 96.6% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.79 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.79 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 95% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
106 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 106 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 95.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
6,612 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 6,612 MHz, which is slower than that of 93% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12.1
This graphics card supports DirectX 12.1, which is older than on 77.2% of graphics cards and equal to 4.5% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1, which is older than on 99.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.5
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.5, which is older than on 98% of graphics cards and equal to 0.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
4
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 4 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 97.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
32 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
75 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 75 W, which is lower than that of 90.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
75 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 75 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
75 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 75 W, which is lower than that of 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
167x 111x 16 mm
Length
168 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 168 mm long, which is shorter than 95.4% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Height
111.8 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111.8 mm tall, which is shorter than 79.9% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
230 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 230 g, which is lighter than 98.4% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 114.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (168 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    168 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 13.2 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.8 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.8 mm vs 125 mm
  • 5.47x cheaper
    NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£95 vs £520).
    £95 vs £520
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports virtual GPU
    This graphics card supports virtual GPU features, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (Unlimited vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    Unlimited vs 8
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 10 °C higher thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a higher thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (85 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    85 °C vs 95 °C
  • 58.3% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (5 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    5 W vs 12 W
  • 65.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 114.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (168 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    168 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 13.2 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.8 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.8 mm vs 125 mm
  • 77.3% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (230 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    230 g vs 1,014 g
  • 53.6% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,163 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,163 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 50.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (10)
    5 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.6 vs 7.2
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 58.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (796 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    796 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 50.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (10)
    5 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.6 vs 7.2
  • 53.8% lower sentiment score
    3.6 vs 7.8
  • 19.7% worse value for money
    NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.2 vs 7.4).
    6.2 vs 7.41
  • 53.6% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,163 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,163 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 58.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (796 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    796 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 88.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (41.9 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    41.9 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 76.9% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (37.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    37.22 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 92.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.79 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    April 2016
    2016 vs 2023
  • 82.2% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (4,040 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    4,040 points vs 22,638 points
  • 93.8% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (919 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    919 points vs 14,779 points
  • 90.1% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1,190 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,190 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 93.9% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (1.8 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    1.8 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 87.5% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.06 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,584 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (768 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    768 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 76.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (106 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    106 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 65.2% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (6,612 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    6,612 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.5% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,653 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,653 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1 vs 1.4).
    1 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5 vs 6.8
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12.1 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12.1 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • Older OpenGL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenGL version than the average graphics card (4.5 vs 4.6).
    4.5 vs 4.6
  • 87.2% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (2,940 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    2,940 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.1a).
    1.4 vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • No HDMI output
    This graphics card does not include HDMI output, the average graphics card does.
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (2 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    2 vs 6
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
10/04/2026
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and temperatures
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro M2000 works as a cheap backup or for older games, but not for modern titles.
7.0
Dave Computes
≈ estimated
12/03/2026
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and technical details
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is a good pick for its niche: cheap, single-slot, and needs no power connector, but weak in demanding games.
9.0
Aqua Prime
≈ estimated
06/12/2024
Hands-on review · game tests on high settings
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is well worth it for anyone needing a new graphics card, though Fortnite still freezes now and then.
8.0
Alex Hus Tech ▶️
≈ estimated
30/04/2023
Hands-on test · gaming FPS and temperatures
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is a very decent card for casual gaming, though it runs hot and needs proper case airflow.
5.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
01/07/2022
Hands-on review · benchmarks across 14 modern games
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro M2000 runs most modern games at low settings, but not well enough to justify paying close to full price.
7.0
Alex Hus Tech ▶️
≈ estimated
12/06/2023
Benchmark · one game test in a budget Dell build
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is playable for budget gaming in small builds, but it needs lowest settings and upscaling for about 40 FPS.
Not graded
Not graded
Shop video
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
13/05/2016
Product overview · Low-power workstation card
Verdict
The Quadro M2000 is a low-power workstation card that needs no power connector and drives four 4K screens, but it offers only DisplayPort outputs.
6.0
techgage.com
≈ estimated
05/05/2016
Benchmark review · Rendering tests
Verdict
The Quadro M2000 is a modest entry-level card for rendering that matches the K5000 in some 3ds Max work but falls behind high-end Quadros.
7.0
develop3d.com
≈ estimated
16/05/2016
Hands-on test · CAD graphics benchmarks
Verdict
The Quadro M2000 is a clear step up from the K2200 for SolidWorks and Creo, but Fusion 360 gains little unless models are very large.
10
creativebloq.com
✓ explicit
08/11/2016
Hands-on test · Quadro versus M4000
Verdict
The Quadro M2000 is only a modest step up from the K2200, but it keeps pace with the M4000 in several tests, making it a solid choice for creative work.
8.0
techgage.com
≈ estimated
05/05/2016
Launch review · Mid-range CAD card
Verdict
The Quadro M2000 is a mid-range CAD card that improves on the K2200 and drives four 4K screens, but only through DisplayPort outputs.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA Quadro M2000

  • Efficient power consumption (75W TDP) requiring no external power connectors
  • Supports up to four 4K displays natively via DisplayPort 1.2
  • Slim, single-slot design compatible with most standard workstation chassis
  • Reliable performance for mainstream CAD and professional 3D applications
  • Quiet operation and effective heat management, typically staying under 65°C
  • Affordable entry point for professional-grade features and ISV certifications

What customers don't like about NVIDIA Quadro M2000

  • Underwhelming gaming performance, often requiring low settings and upscaling (FSR) for modern titles
  • Marginal performance gains over its predecessor (K2200) in specific rendering tasks like Iray
  • Lacks native DVI or VGA ports, necessitating adapters for older monitors
  • Full-height form factor makes it incompatible with low-profile workstation cases
  • Struggles with highly complex 3D environments or high-end professional rendering compared to M4000+ models

Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is a mid-range professional workstation graphics card based on the Maxwell 2.0 (GM206) architecture, featuring 768 CUDA cores and 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit interface with a bandwidth of up to 106 GB/s. Launched in 2016, this single-slot card is highly efficient with a low 75W TDP that eliminates the need for external power connectors, and it uniquely offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs capable of driving four 4K monitors natively. Its main pros include certified stability for professional CAD and 3D modeling applications like SolidWorks and Use code with caution.Copied to clipboardjsonAutoCADUse code with caution.Copied to clipboardjson, a compact form factor suitable for slim workstations, and support for hardware HEVC encoding/decoding. However, its primary cons are its aging 28nm architecture, limited gaming performance by modern standards, and the lack of support for newer technologies like AV1 decoding or real-time ray tracing found in later RTX generations.

Compare NVIDIA Quadro M2000 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found