Quadro M2000 vs Radeon R9 280

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
14.43
+39.6%

R9 280 outperforms M2000 by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking365441
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.413.63
Power efficiency4.949.44
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameTahitiGM206
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)8 April 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 $437.75

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 280 has 49% better value for money than Quadro M2000.

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 cores1792768
Core clock speedno data796 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz1163 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate104.555.82
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS1.786 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs11248

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length275 mm201 mm
Width2-slot1" (2.5 cm)
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5128 Bit
Maximum RAM amount3 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1653 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/sUp to 106 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort4x DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displaysno data4
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Desktop Managementno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
CUDA-5.2

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 280 14.43
+39.6%
Quadro M2000 10.34

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 280 5558
+39.5%
Quadro M2000 3984

Gaming performance

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.43 10.34
Recency 4 March 2014 8 April 2016
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 75 Watt

R9 280 has a 39.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro M2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 166.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while Quadro M2000 is a 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 R9 280
Radeon R9 280
NVIDIA Quadro M2000
Quadro M2000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 398 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 209 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 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.