Radeon R7 350 vs Quadro M2000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000M with Radeon R7 350, including specs and performance data.

M2000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
8.96
+60%

M2000M outperforms R7 350 by an impressive 60% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking491605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.247.03
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGM107Cape Verde
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date3 December 2015 (9 years ago)6 July 2016 (8 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 cores640512
Core clock speed1029 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speed1098 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate43.9225.60
Floating-point processing power1.405 TFLOPS0.8192 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4032

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s72 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+
Display Port1.2no 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.

DirectX1212 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA5.0-

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 HD35
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
4K12
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Elden Ring 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+71.4%
21−24
−71.4%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Valorant 30−35
+60%
20−22
−60%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Dota 2 20
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Elden Ring 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+81%
21−24
−81%
Fortnite 50−55
+76.7%
30−33
−76.7%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+71.4%
21−24
−71.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 30
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+75%
40−45
−75%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Valorant 30−35
+60%
20−22
−60%
World of Tanks 130−140
+65%
80−85
−65%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Dota 2 30−35
+60%
20−22
−60%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+81%
21−24
−81%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+71.4%
21−24
−71.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+75%
40−45
−75%
Valorant 30−35
+60%
20−22
−60%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Elden Ring 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+79.2%
24−27
−79.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
World of Tanks 65−70
+62.5%
40−45
−62.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Valorant 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Elden Ring 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Fortnite 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Valorant 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%

This is how M2000M and R7 350 compete in popular games:

  • M2000M is 67% faster in 1080p
  • M2000M is 71% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.96 5.60
Recency 3 December 2015 6 July 2016
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB

M2000M has a 60% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

R7 350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months.

The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R7 350 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 M2000M
Quadro M2000M
AMD Radeon R7 350
Radeon R7 350

Other comparisons

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.


3.6 501 vote

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 487 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 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.