Quadro 2000M vs Radeon 840M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 840M with Quadro 2000M, including specs and performance data.
840M outperforms 2000M by a whopping 389% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 538 | 979 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.28 |
| Power efficiency | 45.90 | 2.56 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Krackan Point | GF106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | March 2025 (1 year ago) | 13 January 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $46.56 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 256 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 46.40 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.4224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 32 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 4 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 256 KB |
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 | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
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 | 22
−72.7%
| 38
+72.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.23 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 84
+2700%
|
3−4
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 68
+2167%
|
3−4
−2167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+575%
|
8−9
−575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+290%
|
10−11
−290%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+191%
|
10−12
−191%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+138%
|
35−40
−138%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+263%
|
35−40
−263%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+575%
|
8−9
−575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+290%
|
10−11
−290%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 32
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+191%
|
10−12
−191%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+138%
|
35−40
−138%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+290%
|
10−11
−290%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+191%
|
10−12
−191%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+575%
|
8−9
−575%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+423%
|
12−14
−423%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+658%
|
12−14
−658%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Full HD
High
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
High
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 840M and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 2000M is 73% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 840M is 2700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 840M performs better in 47 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.90 | 1.82 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 55 Watt |
Radeon 840M has a 389% higher aggregate performance score, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 267% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 840M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 840M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
