Radeon PRO W7900 vs Quadro P2000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 Mobile with Radeon PRO W7900, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7900 outperforms P2000 Mobile by a whopping 364% 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 | 401 | 26 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 7.38 |
| Power efficiency | 14.70 | 17.36 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 February 2019 (7 years ago) | 13 April 2023 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1152 | 6144 |
| Core clock speed | 1291 MHz | 1855 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1291 MHz | 2495 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 57,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 295 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.95 | 958.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.974 TFLOPS | 61.32 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 192 |
| TMUs | 72 | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 96 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 3 MB |
| L1 Cache | 432 KB | 3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1280 KB | 6 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 96 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 280 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3.75 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.13 GB/s | 864.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| 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 | No outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |
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.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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 | 14.32 | 66.49 |
| Recency | 15 February 2019 | 13 April 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3.75 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 295 Watt |
P2000 Mobile has 293% lower power consumption.
PRO W7900, on the other hand, has a 364% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 1180% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P2000 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon PRO W7900 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
