Quadro M2000 vs Radeon Pro 560X
Aggregated performance score
Quadro M2000 outperforms Radeon Pro 560X by a small 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 431 | 405 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 14.18 | 4.08 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | GM206 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 June 2017 (6 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $437.75 |
| Current price | $133 | $285 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Pro 560X has 248% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 907 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 64.26 | 55.82 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 1,812 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon Pro 560X and Quadro M2000 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 201 mm |
| Width | no data | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| 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 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5080 MHz | 6612 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | Up to 106 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 | DP DP DP DP |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | no data | 5.2 |
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 M2000 outperforms Radeon Pro 560X by 9% 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 M2000 outperforms Radeon Pro 560X by 9% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Radeon Pro 560X outperforms Quadro M2000 by 25% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Radeon Pro 560X outperforms Quadro M2000 by 25% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
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 | 41
+2.5%
| 40−45
−2.5%
|
| 1440p | 40
+0%
| 40−45
+0%
|
| 4K | 17
−5.9%
| 18−20
+5.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 43
−4.7%
|
45−50
+4.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 39
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
−8.1%
|
40−45
+8.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 36
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
−3.8%
|
55−60
+3.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 26
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 25
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 33
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how Pro 560X and Quadro M2000 compete in popular games:
- Pro 560X is 3% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M2000 is 0% faster in 1440p
- Quadro M2000 is 6% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.50 | 10.32 |
| Recency | 5 June 2017 | 8 April 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 75 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro 560X and Quadro M2000.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 560X is a mobile workstation card while Quadro M2000 is a workstation 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.
