Radeon R9 270X vs Quadro P2000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro P2000 outperforms Radeon R9 270X by 49% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 279 | 365 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.99 | 4.50 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | Curacao XT |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (7 years ago) | 8 October 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | $199 |
| Current price | $371 (0.6x MSRP) | $136 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro P2000 has 211% better value for money than R9 270X.
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 | 1024 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 1076 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 94.72 | 84.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,031 gflops | 2,688 gflops |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 201 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2 x 6-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 | 5 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 160 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 140.2 GB/s | 179.2 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 | 4x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | no data | + |
| 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 | + |
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 | + | + |
| 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 outperforms Radeon R9 270X by 49% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro P2000 outperforms Radeon R9 270X by 49% in Passmark.
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%
Quadro P2000 outperforms Radeon R9 270X by 4% 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.
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 | 57
+62.9%
| 35−40
−62.9%
|
| 1440p | 20
+66.7%
| 12−14
−66.7%
|
| 4K | 16
+60%
| 10−12
−60%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+50%
|
20−22
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+46.5%
|
40−45
−46.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+45.5%
|
30−35
−45.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+50%
|
20−22
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+46.9%
|
30−35
−46.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
+50%
|
30−35
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+44.4%
|
45−50
−44.4%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50−55
+58.8%
|
30−35
−58.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+53.8%
|
24−27
−53.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
+53.8%
|
24−27
−53.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+56.5%
|
21−24
−56.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+46.5%
|
40−45
−46.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+45.5%
|
30−35
−45.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+50%
|
20−22
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+28.1%
|
30−35
−28.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
+50%
|
30−35
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+44.4%
|
45−50
−44.4%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50−55
+58.8%
|
30−35
−58.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+53.8%
|
24−27
−53.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−33
+57.9%
|
18−20
−57.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
+53.8%
|
24−27
−53.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+46.2%
|
24−27
−46.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+56.5%
|
21−24
−56.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+46.5%
|
40−45
−46.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+50%
|
20−22
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+9.4%
|
30−35
−9.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
+50%
|
30−35
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+44.4%
|
45−50
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
−4%
|
24−27
+4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+56.5%
|
21−24
−56.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−33
+50%
|
20−22
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+64%
|
24−27
−64%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+5%
|
20−22
−5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+63.6%
|
21−24
−63.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+38.5%
|
12−14
−38.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+52.9%
|
16−18
−52.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
This is how Quadro P2000 and R9 270X compete in popular games:
- Quadro P2000 is 62.9% faster than R9 270X in 1080p
- Quadro P2000 is 66.7% faster than R9 270X in 1440p
- Quadro P2000 is 60% faster than R9 270X in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 100% faster than the R9 270X.
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 270X is 11.1% faster than the Quadro P2000.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P2000 is ahead in 66 tests (97%)
- R9 270X is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.78 | 12.63 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 8 October 2013 |
| Cost | $585 | $199 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 180 Watt |
The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 270X in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 270X 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.
