Quadro 2000M vs Radeon PRO W7500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO W7500 with Quadro 2000M, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7500 outperforms 2000M by a whopping 1657% 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 | 193 | 964 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 39.93 | 0.28 |
| Power efficiency | 34.89 | 2.53 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Navi 33 | GF106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 3 August 2023 (2 years ago) | 13 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $429 | $46.56 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
PRO W7500 has 14161% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1792 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1700 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,300 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 190.4 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.19 TFLOPS | 0.4224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 32 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 KB |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB | no data |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 216 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR6 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1344 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 172.0 GB/s | 28.8 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 2.1 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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 | 650−700
+1611%
| 38
−1611%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 0.66
+85.6%
| 1.23
−85.6%
|
- PRO W7500 has 86% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how PRO W7500 and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:
- PRO W7500 is 1611% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 52 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.80 | 1.81 |
| Recency | 3 August 2023 | 13 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 55 Watt |
PRO W7500 has a 1656.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 2000M, on the other hand, has 27.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO W7500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
