Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon Pro Vega 16

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 16 and Quadro T2000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro Vega 16
2018
4 GB HBM2, 75 Watt
12.51

T2000 Mobile outperforms Pro Vega 16 by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking399268
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.5123.88
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 12TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date14 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 cores10241024
Core clock speed815 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1190 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistorsno data4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate76.16114.2
Floating-point processing power2.437 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs6464

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width1024 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1200 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth307.2 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
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 20.77
+66%

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 HD57
−57.9%
90−95
+57.9%
4K38
−57.9%
60−65
+57.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−68.2%
35−40
+68.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−70.8%
40−45
+70.8%
Elden Ring 35−40
−78.4%
65−70
+78.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
−61%
65−70
+61%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−68.2%
35−40
+68.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−70.8%
40−45
+70.8%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−76%
85−90
+76%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−64.7%
55−60
+64.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−46.9%
45−50
+46.9%
Valorant 45−50
−71.4%
80−85
+71.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
−61%
65−70
+61%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−68.2%
35−40
+68.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−70.8%
40−45
+70.8%
Dota 2 25
−192%
70−75
+192%
Elden Ring 35−40
−78.4%
65−70
+78.4%
Far Cry 5 44
−54.5%
65−70
+54.5%
Fortnite 70−75
−53.5%
100−110
+53.5%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−76%
85−90
+76%
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 45−50
−71.4%
80−85
+71.4%
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
−68.2%
35−40
+68.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−70.8%
40−45
+70.8%
Dota 2 72
−1.4%
70−75
+1.4%
Far Cry 5 45−50
−41.7%
65−70
+41.7%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−76%
85−90
+76%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
−48.4%
130−140
+48.4%
Valorant 45−50
−71.4%
80−85
+71.4%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
−94.1%
30−35
+94.1%
Elden Ring 18−20
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−100%
30−35
+100%
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 12−14
−41.7%
16−18
+41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−88.9%
16−18
+88.9%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−96.6%
55−60
+96.6%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−86.2%
50−55
+86.2%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−80.8%
45−50
+80.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−93.3%
27−30
+93.3%
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%
Elden Ring 8−9
−87.5%
14−16
+87.5%
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 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
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%
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 (98%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.51 20.77
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% 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16
Radeon Pro Vega 16
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
Quadro T2000 Mobile

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 11 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 16 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 398 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.