Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs Radeon Pro Vega 64X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64X and Quadro T2000 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro Vega 64X
2019
16 GB HBM2, 250 Watt
29.92
+94.2%

Pro Vega 64X outperforms T2000 Max-Q by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking157323
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency9.5230.64
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date19 March 2019 (5 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 MHz1200 MHz
Boost clock speed1468 MHz1620 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate375.8103.7
Floating-point processing power12.03 TFLOPS3.318 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
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 speed1000 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth512.0 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 and SDK 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.

Pro Vega 64X 29.92
+94.2%
T2000 Max-Q 15.41

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 64X 13369
+94.1%
T2000 Max-Q 6887

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 HD110−120
+93%
57
−93%
1440p50−55
+92.3%
26
−92.3%
4K70−75
+84.2%
38
−84.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Dota 2 124
+0%
124
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 33
+0%
33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 63
+0%
63
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Dota 2 113
+0%
113
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+0%
33
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 46
+0%
46
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how Pro Vega 64X and T2000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 64X is 93% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 64X is 92% faster in 1440p
  • Pro Vega 64X is 84% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 29.92 15.41
Recency 19 March 2019 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 40 Watt

Pro Vega 64X has a 94.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

T2000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 525% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T2000 Max-Q in performance tests.

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 64X
Radeon Pro Vega 64X
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
Quadro T2000 Max-Q

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.


3.8 33 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 64X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 91 vote

Rate Quadro T2000 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro Vega 64X or Quadro T2000 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.