Radeon R9 280 vs Quadro P2000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 Mobile with Radeon R9 280, including specs and performance data.
P2000 Mobile outperforms R9 280 by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 300 | 339 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.39 | 10.99 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP107GL | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 5 July 2017 (6 years ago) | 4 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $279 |
| Current price | $1477 | $91 (0.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R9 280 has 224% better value for money than P2000 Mobile.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1215 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | 933 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 200 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 77.14 | 104.5 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 3,344 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro P2000 Mobile and Radeon R9 280 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 275 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.13 GB/s | 240 GB/s |
| 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | no data | 1 |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| DisplayPort support | no data | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | - |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| HD3D | no data | + |
| LiquidVR | no data | 1 |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TressFX | no data | 1 |
| TrueAudio | no data | + |
| ZeroCore | no data | - |
| UVD | no data | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| Mantle | no data | - |
| CUDA | 6.1 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Quadro P2000 Mobile outperforms Radeon R9 280 by 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon R9 280 outperforms Quadro P2000 Mobile by 17% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 16.94 | 14.39 |
| Recency | 5 July 2017 | 4 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 200 Watt |
The Quadro P2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R9 280 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.
