Radeon Graphics vs Quadro M2000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2000M with Radeon Graphics, including specs and performance data.
M2000M outperforms Graphics by a whopping 354% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 483 | 894 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Power efficiency | 11.30 | 9.14 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Renoir |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 December 2015 (8 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
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 | 640 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1098 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 43.92 | 42.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.405 TFLOPS | 1.344 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 28 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | IGP |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| 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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
| CUDA | 5.0 | - |
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.
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:
| Full HD | 35
+400%
| 7−8
−400%
|
| 4K | 10
+400%
| 2−3
−400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+400%
|
12−14
−400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+367%
|
6−7
−367%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+400%
|
12−14
−400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+400%
|
12−14
−400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+367%
|
6−7
−367%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+414%
|
14−16
−414%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+400%
|
12−14
−400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+400%
|
12−14
−400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+400%
|
12−14
−400%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
This is how M2000M and Graphics compete in popular games:
- M2000M is 400% faster in 1080p
- M2000M is 400% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.98 | 1.98 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 15 Watt |
M2000M has a 353.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Graphics, on the other hand, has a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Graphics in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon Graphics is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
