Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs Radeon R6 (Mullins)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R6 (Mullins) with Quadro T2000 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.
T2000 Max-Q outperforms R6 (Mullins) by a whopping 2733% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1262 | 357 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 31.97 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Mullins | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (11 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (6 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 | 128 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1620 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 103.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.318 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 2−3
−2750%
| 57
+2750%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 26 |
| 4K | 1−2
−3700%
| 38
+3700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 65−70 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−688%
|
60−65
+688%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−375%
|
130−140
+375%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−1094%
|
210−220
+1094%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−933%
|
124
+933%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 65−70 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 33 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−688%
|
60−65
+688%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−950%
|
63
+950%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−375%
|
130−140
+375%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−842%
|
113
+842%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 65−70 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−688%
|
60−65
+688%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−450%
|
33
+450%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−375%
|
130−140
+375%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1033%
|
30−35
+1033%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−4033%
|
120−130
+4033%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2583%
|
160−170
+2583%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−1700%
|
35−40
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2000%
|
40−45
+2000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−3700%
|
35−40
+3700%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−3067%
|
95−100
+3067%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| 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%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| 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%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
This is how R6 (Mullins) and T2000 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- T2000 Max-Q is 2750% faster in 1080p
- T2000 Max-Q is 3700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Max-Q is 4033% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T2000 Max-Q performs better in 29 tests (51%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (49%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.58 | 16.43 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
T2000 Max-Q has a 2732.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R6 (Mullins) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R6 (Mullins) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T2000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
