Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon Pro Vega 64

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64 with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 64
2017
16 GB HBM2, 250 Watt
33.61
+61.8%

Pro Vega 64 outperforms T2000 Mobile by an impressive 62% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking160270
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency9.2723.87
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU117
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date27 June 2017 (7 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 cores40961024
Core clock speed1250 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate345.6114.2
Floating-point processing power11.06 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs25664

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount16 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 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 Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.1251.2.131
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 64 33.61
+61.8%
T2000 Mobile 20.77

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 64 12920
+61.8%
T2000 Mobile 7985

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
World of Tanks 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
World of Tanks 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.61 20.77
Recency 27 June 2017 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 60 Watt

Pro Vega 64 has a 61.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 316.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T2000 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 64 is a workstation card while Quadro T2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.


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 64
Radeon Pro Vega 64
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.


4 21 vote

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 64 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.