Quadro 2000 vs Radeon R9 270X

Place in the ranking	399	842
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.59	0.15
Power efficiency	4.85	2.73
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Curacao	GF106
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	24 December 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 270X has 3627% better value for money than Quadro 2000.

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	1280	192
Core clock speed	no data	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,800 million	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	62 Watt
Texture fill rate	84.00	20.00
Floating-point processing power	2.688 TFLOPS	0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	80	32

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	178 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2 x 6-pin	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	650 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 GB/s	41.6 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
UVD	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	-	2.1

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.

R9 270X 12.10
+415%

Quadro 2000 2.35

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.

R9 270X 4874
+415%

Quadro 2000 946

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	21−24 +450%	4−5 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +486%	7−8 −486%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +450%	4−5 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +467%	9−10 −467%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +483%	6−7 −483%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
Valorant	50−55 +456%	9−10 −456%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +486%	7−8 −486%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +450%	4−5 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Dota 2	45−50 +475%	8−9 −475%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +433%	9−10 −433%
Fortnite	70−75 +500%	12−14 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +467%	9−10 −467%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Grand Theft Auto V	45−50 +475%	8−9 −475%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +483%	6−7 −483%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 +422%	18−20 −422%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +443%	7−8 −443%
Valorant	50−55 +456%	9−10 −456%
World of Tanks	170−180 +473%	30−33 −473%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +486%	7−8 −486%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +450%	4−5 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Dota 2	45−50 +475%	8−9 −475%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +433%	9−10 −433%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +467%	9−10 −467%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 +422%	18−20 −422%
Valorant	50−55 +456%	9−10 −456%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 +439%	18−20 −439%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
World of Tanks	90−95 +463%	16−18 −463%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +480%	5−6 −480%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +500%	5−6 −500%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 +567%	3−4 −567%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +420%	5−6 −420%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Valorant	30−35 +417%	6−7 −417%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Dota 2	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +429%	7−8 −429%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Dota 2	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Fortnite	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Valorant	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	12.10	2.35
Recency	8 October 2013	24 December 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	62 Watt

R9 270X has a 414.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 2000, on the other hand, has 190.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 270X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270X is a desktop card while Quadro 2000 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.