
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
GeForce GTX 960M
2015Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌36.4% higher power demand at 75W vs 55W.
Quadro M2000M
2015Why buy it
- ✅Draws 55W instead of 75W, a 20W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
GeForce GTX 960M
2015Quadro M2000M
2015Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 55W instead of 75W, a 20W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌36.4% higher power demand at 75W vs 55W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
Quick Answers
So, is Quadro M2000M better than GeForce GTX 960M?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does GeForce GTX 960M make more sense than Quadro M2000M?
Games Benchmarks
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 9800X3D 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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 27 FPS | 33 FPS |
| medium | 17 FPS | 21 FPS |
| high | 11 FPS | 13 FPS |
| ultra | 6 FPS | 6 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 13 FPS | 16 FPS |
| medium | 7 FPS | 9 FPS |
| high | 4 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 2 FPS | 2 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 5 FPS | 5 FPS |
| medium | 3 FPS | 3 FPS |
| high | 2 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 1 FPS | 1 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 81 FPS |
| medium | 49 FPS | 50 FPS |
| high | 37 FPS | 37 FPS |
| ultra | 22 FPS | 22 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 37 FPS | 37 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 27 FPS |
| high | 17 FPS | 17 FPS |
| ultra | 12 FPS | 11 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 12 FPS | 12 FPS |
| medium | 10 FPS | 9 FPS |
| high | 8 FPS | 8 FPS |
| ultra | 5 FPS | 5 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 152 FPS | 153 FPS |
| medium | 122 FPS | 123 FPS |
| high | 101 FPS | 102 FPS |
| ultra | 76 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 114 FPS | 115 FPS |
| medium | 91 FPS | 92 FPS |
| high | 76 FPS | 77 FPS |
| ultra | 57 FPS | 58 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 76 FPS | 77 FPS |
| medium | 61 FPS | 61 FPS |
| high | 51 FPS | 51 FPS |
| ultra | 38 FPS | 38 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 152 FPS | 153 FPS |
| medium | 121 FPS | 123 FPS |
| high | 101 FPS | 102 FPS |
| ultra | 76 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 111 FPS | 115 FPS |
| medium | 91 FPS | 92 FPS |
| high | 76 FPS | 77 FPS |
| ultra | 57 FPS | 58 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 63 FPS | 71 FPS |
| medium | 49 FPS | 56 FPS |
| high | 38 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 30 FPS | 35 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 960M and Quadro M2000M

GeForce GTX 960M
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
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)
The GeForce GTX 960M gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Quadro M2000M relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 960M | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | 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.












