Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon HD 7850

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 7850 with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

HD 7850
2012, $249
2 GB GDDR5, 130 Watt
9.37

T2000 Mobile outperforms HD 7850 by a whopping 105% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking522328
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.66no data
Power efficiency5.5824.73
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code namePitcairnTU117
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date5 March 2012 (14 years ago)27 May 2019 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores10241024
Core clock speedno data1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate55.04114.2
Floating-point processing power1.761 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs6464
L1 Cache256 KB1 MB
L2 Cache512 KB1024 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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 2.1 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1200 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth153.6 GB/s128.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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.

HD 7850 9.37
T2000 Mobile 19.17
+105%

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.

HD 7850 3905
Samples: 11581
T2000 Mobile 7985
+104%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.37 19.17
Recency 5 March 2012 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 60 Watt

T2000 Mobile has a 105% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133% more advanced lithography process, and 117% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7850 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7850 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro T2000 Mobile 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 950 votes

Rate Radeon HD 7850 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 514 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 7850 or Quadro T2000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.