Radeon HD 7670M vs Quadro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2000 with Radeon HD 7670M, including specs and performance data.
M2000 outperforms HD 7670M by a whopping 751% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 448 | 1063 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.79 | 0.03 |
| Power efficiency | 9.48 | 4.18 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | Thames |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) | 17 February 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | $629.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Quadro M2000 has 12533% better value for money than HD 7670M.
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 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.82 | 14.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.786 TFLOPS | 0.576 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 48 | 24 |
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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 201 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 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 | 128 Bit | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 106 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs |
| 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| 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.
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:
| 900p | 140−150
+724%
| 17
−724%
|
| Full HD | 170−180
+750%
| 20
−750%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.58
+1123%
| 31.50
−1123%
|
- Quadro M2000 has 1123% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how Quadro M2000 and HD 7670M compete in popular games:
- Quadro M2000 is 724% faster in 900p
- Quadro M2000 is 750% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 42 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.94 | 1.05 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 17 February 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 20 Watt |
Quadro M2000 has a 751.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
HD 7670M, on the other hand, has 275% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7670M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while Radeon HD 7670M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
