Radeon RX 7650 GRE vs Quadro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2000 with Radeon RX 7650 GRE, including specs and performance data.
7650 GRE outperforms M2000 by a whopping 347% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 492 | 100 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.49 | 92.13 |
| Power efficiency | 9.82 | 19.96 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | Navi 33 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) | February 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 7650 GRE has 6083% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
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 cores | 768 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz | 1720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz | 2695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 13,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 165 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.82 | 345.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.786 TFLOPS | 22.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 48 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | 288 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 MB |
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 | 204 mm |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 106 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| HDMI | - | + |
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 support
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 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.10 | 40.68 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 165 Watt |
Quadro M2000 has 120% lower power consumption.
RX 7650 GRE, on the other hand, has a 347% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7650 GRE 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 RX 7650 GRE 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.
