Radeon RX 6300M vs Quadro P2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 with Radeon RX 6300M, including specs and performance data.
P2000 outperforms 6300M by a substantial 39% 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 | 355 | 444 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.93 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 18.00 | 27.82 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (9 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | no data |
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 | 1024 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1076 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 94.72 | 115.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.031 TFLOPS | 3.686 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1280 KB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 8 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 160 Bit | 32 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 140.2 GB/s | 72 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 | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
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 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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.
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
+40%
| 40−45
−40%
|
| 1440p | 20
+42.9%
| 14−16
−42.9%
|
| 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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+41.4%
|
70−75
−41.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+46.2%
|
24−27
−46.2%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+33.9%
|
55−60
−33.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+41.4%
|
70−75
−41.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+46.2%
|
24−27
−46.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+11.9%
|
40−45
−11.9%
|
| Fortnite | 144
+94.6%
|
70−75
−94.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+35.2%
|
50−55
−35.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53
+15.2%
|
45−50
−15.2%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+23.6%
|
110−120
−23.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+33.9%
|
55−60
−33.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+41.4%
|
70−75
−41.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+24.2%
|
170−180
−24.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+46.2%
|
24−27
−46.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+20%
|
85−90
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
| Fortnite | 60
−23.3%
|
70−75
+23.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+35.2%
|
50−55
−35.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+37.5%
|
45−50
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+46.2%
|
24−27
−46.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41
−12.2%
|
45−50
+12.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+15.2%
|
30−35
−15.2%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+23.6%
|
110−120
−23.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+33.9%
|
55−60
−33.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+46.2%
|
24−27
−46.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 98
+15.3%
|
85−90
−15.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
−20%
|
40−45
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+35.2%
|
50−55
−35.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
−58.6%
|
45−50
+58.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
−32%
|
30−35
+32%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+23.6%
|
110−120
−23.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45
−64.4%
|
70−75
+64.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+35.8%
|
95−100
−35.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+57.9%
|
18−20
−57.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+87.2%
|
85−90
−87.2%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+28.2%
|
120−130
−28.2%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+42.9%
|
35−40
−42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+41.9%
|
30−35
−41.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+51.7%
|
60−65
−51.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+34.8%
|
45−50
−34.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+40.9%
|
21−24
−40.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
This is how Quadro P2000 and RX 6300M compete in popular games:
- Quadro P2000 is 40% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P2000 is 43% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P2000 is 60% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 95% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6300M is 71% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P2000 performs better in 47 tests (78%)
- RX 6300M performs better in 13 tests (22%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.51 | 12.63 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 4 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
Quadro P2000 has a 39% higher aggregate performance score, and a 150% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 6300M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 167% more advanced lithography process, and 114% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 6300M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6300M 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.
