Radeon 680M vs Quadro M2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000 with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M2000
2016
4 GB 128-bit, 75 Watt
9.48

680M outperforms M2000 by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking480452
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.88no data
Power efficiency9.6216.51
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGM206Rembrandt+
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date8 April 2016 (9 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$437.75 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores768768
Core clock speed796 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1163 MHz2200 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate55.82105.6
Floating-point processing power1.786 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs4848
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length201 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 type128 BitSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1653 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidthUp to 106 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors4x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Number of simultaneous displays4no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA5.2-

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.

Quadro M2000 9.48
Radeon 680M 10.84
+14.3%

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.

Quadro M2000 4017
Radeon 680M 4593
+14.3%

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 HD30−35
−23.3%
37
+23.3%
1440p14−16
−21.4%
17
+21.4%
4K9−10
−22.2%
11
+22.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p14.59no data
1440p31.27no data
4K48.64no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
+0%
38
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 32
+0%
32
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Dota 2 71
+0%
71
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 46
+0%
46
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 36
+0%
36
+0%
Metro Exodus 23
+0%
23
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+0%
40
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
+0%
18
+0%
Dota 2 61
+0%
61
+0%
Far Cry 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+0%
24
+0%
Valorant 146
+0%
146
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 680M is 23% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 680M is 21% faster in 1440p
  • Radeon 680M is 22% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.48 10.84
Recency 8 April 2016 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 50 Watt

Radeon 680M has a 14.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 680M is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M2000
Quadro M2000
AMD Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M

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.


3.8 223 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1083 votes

Rate Radeon 680M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M2000 or Radeon 680M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.