Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon R9 390

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 390 with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R9 390
2015, $329
0 MB GDDR5, 275 Watt
20.90
+9.5%

R9 390 outperforms T2000 Mobile by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking315331
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.07no data
Power efficiency5.9224.79
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGrenadaTU117
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (11 years ago)27 May 2019 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329 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 cores25601024
Core clock speedno data1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate160.0114.2
Floating-point processing power5.12 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs16064
L1 Cache640 KB1 MB
L2 Cache1024 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 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-pinno data
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount0 MB4 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
Mantle+-
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.

R9 390 20.90
+9.5%
T2000 Mobile 19.09

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.

R9 390 8745
+9.5%
Samples: 3451
T2000 Mobile 7985

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 50−55
Counter-Strike 2 110−120 110−120
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 40−45

Full HD
Medium

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

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 50−55 50−55
Battlefield 5 80−85 80−85
Counter-Strike 2 110−120 110−120
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240 230−240
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 40−45
Dota 2 110−120 110−120
Far Cry 5 60−65 60−65
Far Cry 6 50−55 50−55
Fortnite 100−110 100−110
Forza Horizon 4 75−80 75−80
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75 70−75
Metro Exodus 40−45 40−45
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75 70−75
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60 55−60
Valorant 140−150 140−150

Full HD
Ultra

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

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 100−110 100−110

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45 40−45
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150 140−150
Far Cry 6 30−35 30−35
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35 30−35
Metro Exodus 24−27 24−27
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 160−170 160−170

1440p
Ultra

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

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 45−50 45−50

4K
High

Atomic Heart 14−16 14−16
Counter-Strike 2 18−20 18−20
Far Cry 6 10−11 10−11
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40 35−40
Metro Exodus 16−18 16−18
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 27−30
Valorant 100−110 100−110

4K
Ultra

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

4K
Epic

Fortnite 20−22 20−22

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.90 19.09
Recency 18 June 2015 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 60 Watt

R9 390 has a 9% higher aggregate performance score.

T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 57% more advanced lithography process, and 78% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 390 and Quadro T2000 Mobile.

Be aware that Radeon R9 390 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.


4.2 677 votes

Rate Radeon R9 390 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 R9 390 or Quadro T2000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.