Radeon 860M vs Quadro P2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 with Radeon 860M, including specs and performance data.
P2000 outperforms 860M by an impressive 57% 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 | 314 | 426 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.60 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 17.17 | 54.65 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | Strix Point |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (8 years ago) | March 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1076 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 34,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 94.72 | 96.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.031 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 32 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 8 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 201 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | 5 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 160 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 140.2 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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.
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 | 56
+124%
| 25
−124%
|
| 1440p | 20
+66.7%
| 12−14
−66.7%
|
| 4K | 16
+60%
| 10−12
−60%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 10.45 | no data |
| 1440p | 29.25 | no data |
| 4K | 36.56 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+65.6%
|
60−65
−65.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+70%
|
20−22
−70%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+51%
|
45−50
−51%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+65.6%
|
60−65
−65.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+27%
|
35−40
−27%
|
| Fortnite | 144
+118%
|
65−70
−118%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+52.1%
|
45−50
−52.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+60%
|
35−40
−60%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+70%
|
20−22
−70%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53
+32.5%
|
40−45
−32.5%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+34.7%
|
100−110
−34.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+51%
|
45−50
−51%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+65.6%
|
60−65
−65.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+35.6%
|
160−170
−35.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+70%
|
60−65
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+10.8%
|
35−40
−10.8%
|
| Fortnite | 60
−10%
|
65−70
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+52.1%
|
45−50
−52.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+60%
|
35−40
−60%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+179%
|
24
−179%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+70%
|
20−22
−70%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+65.2%
|
21−24
−65.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41
+2.5%
|
40−45
−2.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+31%
|
27−30
−31%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+34.7%
|
100−110
−34.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+51%
|
45−50
−51%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 98
+63.3%
|
60−65
−63.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
−5.7%
|
35−40
+5.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+52.1%
|
45−50
−52.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+70%
|
20−22
−70%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
−37.9%
|
40−45
+37.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
−16%
|
27−30
+16%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+60%
|
85−90
−60%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45
−46.7%
|
65−70
+46.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+51.8%
|
85−90
−51.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+76.5%
|
16−18
−76.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+76.9%
|
12−14
−76.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+65%
|
100−105
−65%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+40.2%
|
120−130
−40.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+72.4%
|
27−30
−72.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+63%
|
27−30
−63%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+45.5%
|
21−24
−45.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+67.8%
|
55−60
−67.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+63.2%
|
18−20
−63.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
This is how Quadro P2000 and Radeon 860M compete in popular games:
- Quadro P2000 is 124% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P2000 is 67% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P2000 is 60% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 200% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 860M is 57% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P2000 is ahead in 41 test (79%)
- Radeon 860M is ahead in 10 tests (19%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.25 | 10.98 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
Quadro P2000 has a 57.1% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 860M, on the other hand, has a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 860M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation card while Radeon 860M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
