Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon Pro Vega 16

Place in the ranking	399	270
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	11.50	23.89
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Vega 12	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	14 November 2018 (6 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)

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	1024
Core clock speed	815 MHz	1575 MHz
Boost clock speed	1190 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	76.16	114.2
Floating-point processing power	2.437 TFLOPS	3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64	64

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	large	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16

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	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	1024 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1200 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	307.2 GB/s	128.0 GB/s
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

No outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	-	7.5

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. 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.

Pro Vega 16 12.51

T2000 Mobile 20.78
+66.1%

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.

Pro Vega 16 4809

T2000 Mobile 7985
+66%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Pro Vega 16 10569

T2000 Mobile 13524
+28%

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 −57.9%	90−95 +57.9%
4K	38 −57.9%	60−65 +57.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −76.2%	35−40 +76.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −68%	40−45 +68%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −61%	65−70 +61%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −76.2%	35−40 +76.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −68%	40−45 +68%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −76%	85−90 +76%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 −66.7%	55−60 +66.7%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −64.7%	55−60 +64.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −46.9%	45−50 +46.9%
Valorant	50−55 −68%	80−85 +68%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −61%	65−70 +61%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −76.2%	35−40 +76.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −68%	40−45 +68%
Dota 2	25 −192%	70−75 +192%
Far Cry 5	44 −56.8%	65−70 +56.8%
Fortnite	70−75 −53.5%	100−110 +53.5%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −76%	85−90 +76%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 −66.7%	55−60 +66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	45−50 −62.2%	70−75 +62.2%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −64.7%	55−60 +64.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 −48.4%	130−140 +48.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −46.9%	45−50 +46.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −73.7%	65−70 +73.7%
Valorant	50−55 −68%	80−85 +68%
World of Tanks	170−180 −38%	230−240 +38%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −61%	65−70 +61%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −76.2%	35−40 +76.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −68%	40−45 +68%
Dota 2	72 −1.4%	70−75 +1.4%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −43.8%	65−70 +43.8%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −76%	85−90 +76%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 −66.7%	55−60 +66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 −48.4%	130−140 +48.4%
Valorant	50−55 −68%	80−85 +68%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −94.1%	30−35 +94.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −88.9%	30−35 +88.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 −112%	170−180 +112%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −72.7%	18−20 +72.7%
World of Tanks	85−90 −57.3%	140−150 +57.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −68%	40−45 +68%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −70%	16−18 +70%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −96.6%	55−60 +96.6%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −80%	50−55 +80%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 −73.7%	30−35 +73.7%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −80.8%	45−50 +80.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −70.6%	27−30 +70.6%
Valorant	30−35 −74.2%	50−55 +74.2%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −143%	16−18 +143%
Dota 2	21−24 −52.2%	35−40 +52.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −52.2%	35−40 +52.2%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −87.5%	14−16 +87.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −67.6%	60−65 +67.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −62.5%	12−14 +62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −52.2%	35−40 +52.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 −90.9%	21−24 +90.9%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −143%	16−18 +143%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Dota 2	38 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −80%	27−30 +80%
Fortnite	14−16 −78.6%	24−27 +78.6%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −82.4%	30−35 +82.4%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 −88.9%	16−18 +88.9%
Valorant	12−14 −92.3%	24−27 +92.3%

This is how Pro Vega 16 and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

T2000 Mobile is 58% faster in 1080p
T2000 Mobile is 58% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 16 is 9% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 192% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Pro Vega 16 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
T2000 Mobile is ahead in 62 tests (97%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	12.51	20.78
Recency	14 November 2018	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	60 Watt

T2000 Mobile has a 66.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega 16 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.