Radeon R7 240 vs Quadro M2000

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000 with Radeon R7 240, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M2000
2016
4 GB 128-bit, 75 Watt
10.34
+344%

M2000 outperforms R7 240 by a whopping 344% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking435841
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.450.16
Power efficiency9.595.40
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGM206Oland
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date8 April 2016 (8 years ago)8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$437.75 $69

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro M2000 has 2056% better value for money than R7 240.

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 cores768320
Core clock speed796 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1163 MHz780 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate55.8214.00
Floating-point processing power1.786 TFLOPS0.448 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs4820

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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length201 mm168 mm
Width1" (2.5 cm)1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneN/A

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 BitGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz1150 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 106 GB/s72 GB/s

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 DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire-+
FreeSync-+
DDMA audiono data+
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.

DirectX12DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.126-
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. 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 10.34
+344%
R7 240 2.33

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 3992
+344%
R7 240 899

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 10.34 2.33
Recency 8 April 2016 8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 50 Watt

Quadro M2000 has a 343.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

R7 240, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 240 is a desktop one.


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

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 R7 240
Radeon R7 240

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.8 200 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 1154 votes

Rate Radeon R7 240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.