Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL

VS

Aggregate performance score

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

Pro WX Vega M GL
2018
4 GB HBM2, 65 Watt
12.12

T2000 Mobile outperforms Pro WX Vega M GL by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking409276
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.0923.75
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code namePolaris 22TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date24 April 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 cores12801024
Core clock speed931 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1011 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate80.88114.2
Floating-point processing power2.588 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs8064

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfaceIGPPCIe 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 speed700 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
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.

Pro WX Vega M GL 12.12
T2000 Mobile 20.29
+67.4%

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 WX Vega M GL 4768
T2000 Mobile 7985
+67.5%

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 WX Vega M GL 10020
T2000 Mobile 13524
+35%

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 HD52
−63.5%
85−90
+63.5%
4K18
−66.7%
30−35
+66.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 27−30
−79.3%
50−55
+79.3%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−76.2%
35−40
+76.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−70.8%
40−45
+70.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 27−30
−79.3%
50−55
+79.3%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−58.8%
80−85
+58.8%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−76.2%
35−40
+76.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−70.8%
40−45
+70.8%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−69.2%
65−70
+69.2%
Fortnite 65−70
−50%
100−110
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−58%
75−80
+58%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
−74.2%
50−55
+74.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−76.2%
70−75
+76.2%
Valorant 100−110
−39.4%
140−150
+39.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 27−30
−79.3%
50−55
+79.3%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−58.8%
80−85
+58.8%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−76.2%
35−40
+76.2%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
−39.5%
230−240
+39.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−70.8%
40−45
+70.8%
Dota 2 75−80
−39.2%
110−120
+39.2%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−69.2%
65−70
+69.2%
Fortnite 65−70
−50%
100−110
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−58%
75−80
+58%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
−74.2%
50−55
+74.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
−65.9%
70−75
+65.9%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−75%
40−45
+75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−76.2%
70−75
+76.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
−27.3%
55−60
+27.3%
Valorant 100−110
−39.4%
140−150
+39.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
−58.8%
80−85
+58.8%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−76.2%
35−40
+76.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−70.8%
40−45
+70.8%
Dota 2 75−80
−39.2%
110−120
+39.2%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−69.2%
65−70
+69.2%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−58%
75−80
+58%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
−74.2%
50−55
+74.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−76.2%
70−75
+76.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
−133%
55−60
+133%
Valorant 100−110
−39.4%
140−150
+39.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 65−70
−50%
100−110
+50%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 85−90
−59.1%
140−150
+59.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
−88.9%
30−35
+88.9%
Metro Exodus 14−16
−78.6%
24−27
+78.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
−123%
170−180
+123%
Valorant 120−130
−44.4%
180−190
+44.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
−77.4%
55−60
+77.4%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−60%
24−27
+60%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−76%
40−45
+76%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−75%
45−50
+75%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
−66.7%
35−40
+66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−77.8%
30−35
+77.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
−80%
45−50
+80%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−60%
16−18
+60%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
−52.2%
35−40
+52.2%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
−86.7%
27−30
+86.7%
Valorant 60−65
−79%
110−120
+79%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−93.3%
27−30
+93.3%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%
Dota 2 40−45
−59.5%
65−70
+59.5%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−75%
21−24
+75%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−70%
30−35
+70%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
−100%
18−20
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
−72.7%
18−20
+72.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10−12
−81.8%
20−22
+81.8%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how Pro WX Vega M GL and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T2000 Mobile is 63% faster in 1080p
  • T2000 Mobile is 67% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 133% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • T2000 Mobile is ahead in 66 tests (99%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.12 20.29
Recency 24 April 2018 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 60 Watt

T2000 Mobile has a 67.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 8.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL 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 WX Vega M GL
Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
Quadro T2000

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.


5 1 vote

Rate Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 403 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL or Quadro T2000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.