Radeon R5 M240 vs Quadro 2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 2000 with Radeon R5 M240, including specs and performance data.
2000 outperforms R5 M240 by a whopping 110% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 838 | 1072 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.15 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.73 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Jet |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 24 December 2010 (14 years ago) | 18 September 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 20.00 | 20.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 0.6592 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 20 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | Not Listed |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 178 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 | Not Listed |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 0 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | Not Listed |
| Memory clock speed | 650 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | Not Listed |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| Mantle | - | + |
| CUDA | 2.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
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 | 27−30
+92.9%
| 14
−92.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 22.19 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 2000 and R5 M240 compete in popular games:
- Quadro 2000 is 93% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 39 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.46 | 1.17 |
| Recency | 24 December 2010 | 18 September 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
Quadro 2000 has a 110.3% higher aggregate performance score.
R5 M240, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro 2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 2000 is a workstation card while Radeon R5 M240 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
