Radeon R7 265 vs Quadro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2000 with Radeon R7 265, including specs and performance data.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 500 | 498 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.63 | 4.80 |
| Power efficiency | 9.91 | 4.97 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (10 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 265 has 194% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.82 | 59.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.786 TFLOPS | 1.894 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 288 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 512 KB |
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 support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 201 mm | 210 mm |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1 x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 106 GB/s | 179.2 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
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 | 9.80 | 9.81 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 13 February 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
Quadro M2000 has an age advantage of 2 years, and 100% lower power consumption.
R7 265, on the other hand, has a 0% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M2000 and Radeon R7 265.
Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 265 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
