Radeon 780M vs Quadro M2000

Place in the ranking	440	305
Place by popularity	not in top-100	48
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.77	no data
Power efficiency	9.53	83.89
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	GM206	Hawx Point
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	8 April 2016 (8 years ago)	6 December 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$437.75	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	768	768
Core clock speed	796 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	1163 MHz	2700 MHz
Number of transistors	2,940 million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.82	129.6
Floating-point processing power	1.786 TFLOPS	8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	48	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

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 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	201 mm	no data
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	no data
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	128 Bit	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1653 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	Up to 106 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	no 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 Connectors	4x DisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no 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 compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.8
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	5.2	-

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. 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.

Quadro M2000 10.38

Radeon 780M 18.28
+76.1%

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 3991

Radeon 780M 7029
+76.1%

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	18−21 −100%	36 +100%
1440p	10−12 −90%	19 +90%
4K	7−8 −85.7%	13 +85.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	24.32	no data
1440p	43.78	no data
4K	62.54	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	32 +0%	32 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	39 +0%	39 +0%
Elden Ring	37 +0%	37 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	26 +0%	26 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +0%	15 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65 +0%	65 +0%
Metro Exodus	44 +0%	44 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	25 +0%	25 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +0%	12 +0%
Dota 2	29 +0%	29 +0%
Elden Ring	42 +0%	42 +0%
Far Cry 5	32 +0%	32 +0%
Fortnite	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	54 +0%	54 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	45 +0%	45 +0%
Metro Exodus	32 +0%	32 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
World of Tanks	220−230 +0%	220−230 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +0%	12 +0%
Dota 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	46 +0%	46 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	18 +0%	18 +0%
Elden Ring	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	19 +0%	19 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
World of Tanks	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	32 +0%	32 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +0%	20 +0%
Valorant	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Dota 2	21 +0%	21 +0%
Elden Ring	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	21 +0%	21 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21 +0%	21 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Fortnite	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	17 +0%	17 +0%
Valorant	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

Radeon 780M is 100% faster in 1080p
Radeon 780M is 90% faster in 1440p
Radeon 780M is 86% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.38	18.28
Recency	8 April 2016	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 76.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while Radeon 780M is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.