Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire vs Quadro P2000 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P2000 Mobile with Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire, including specs and performance data.

P2000 Mobile
2019
3.75 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.32
+57%

P2000 Mobile outperforms HD 6990M Crossfire by an impressive 57% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking401522
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency14.70no data
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Terascale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGP106Blackcomb XTX
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date15 February 2019 (7 years ago)12 July 2011 (14 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 cores11522240
Core clock speed1291 MHz715 MHz
Boost clock speed1291 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,400 million2x1700 Million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattno data
Texture fill rate92.95no data
Floating-point processing power2.974 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs72no data
L1 Cache432 KBno data
L2 Cache1280 KBno data

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 sizemedium sizedlarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount3.75 GB2x2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth96.13 GB/sno data
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)11
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2-
CUDA6.1-

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.

P2000 Mobile 14.32
+57%
HD 6990M Crossfire 9.12

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

P2000 Mobile 8387
+30.6%
HD 6990M Crossfire 6422

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

P2000 Mobile 32964
+28%
HD 6990M Crossfire 25759

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:

900p150−160
+51.5%
99
−51.5%
Full HD160−170
+48.1%
108
−48.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how P2000 Mobile and HD 6990M Crossfire compete in popular games:

  • P2000 Mobile is 52% faster in 900p
  • P2000 Mobile is 48% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.32 9.12
Recency 15 February 2019 12 July 2011
Chip lithography 16 nm 40 nm

P2000 Mobile has a 57% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire is a mobile workstation one.

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.


4.1 132 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 5 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P2000 Mobile or Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.