Radeon R7 250E vs Quadro 2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 2000 with Radeon R7 250E, including specs and performance data.
R7 250E outperforms 2000 by an impressive 73% 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 | 910 | 753 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | 1.07 |
| Power efficiency | 2.81 | 5.60 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 24 December 2010 (15 years ago) | 20 December 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $109 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 250E has 1683% better value for money than Quadro 2000.
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 | 192 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.00 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 0.8192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 178 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 650 MHz | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.29 | 3.97 |
| Recency | 24 December 2010 | 20 December 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 55 Watt |
R7 250E has a 73% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 13% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 250E is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 250E is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
