Radeon RX Vega Mobile vs Quadro 2000
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 837 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.14 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.72 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Vega Mobile |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 24 December 2010 (13 years ago) | 7 January 2018 (6 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 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.00 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 32 | no data |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| 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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 650 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | no data |
| 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 data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | 2.1 | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 24 December 2010 | 7 January 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 90 Watt |
Quadro 2000 has 45.2% lower power consumption.
RX Vega Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Quadro 2000 and Radeon RX Vega Mobile. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Quadro 2000 is a workstation card while Radeon RX Vega Mobile is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
