Quadro 2000 vs Radeon R9 380

Place in the ranking	342	839
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.07	0.15
Power efficiency	5.77	2.74
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Antigua	GF106
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 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 380 has 5947% 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	1792	192
Compute units	28	no data
Core clock speed	no data	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	970 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	5,000 million	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	62 Watt
Texture fill rate	108.6	20.00
Floating-point processing power	3.476 TFLOPS	0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	112	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	221 mm	178 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Form factor	full height / full length / dual slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2 x 6-pin	None
Bridgeless CrossFire	+	-

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
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	-	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	970 MHz	650 MHz
Memory bandwidth	182.4 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	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
FRTC	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
VCE	+	-
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	6.3	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
Mantle	+	-
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 380 15.89
+546%

Quadro 2000 2.46

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 380 6111
+546%

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.

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	65 +550%	10−12 −550%
4K	27 +575%	4−5 −575%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.06 +1857%	59.90 −1857%
4K	7.37 +1932%	149.75 −1932%

R9 380 has 1857% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R9 380 has 1932% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +600%	4−5 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +675%	4−5 −675%
Elden Ring	45−50 +600%	7−8 −600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +629%	7−8 −629%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +600%	4−5 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +675%	4−5 −675%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +550%	10−11 −550%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +617%	6−7 −617%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +660%	5−6 −660%
Valorant	60−65 +611%	9−10 −611%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +629%	7−8 −629%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +600%	4−5 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +675%	4−5 −675%
Dota 2	55−60 +613%	8−9 −613%
Elden Ring	45−50 +600%	7−8 −600%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +613%	8−9 −613%
Fortnite	85−90 +633%	12−14 −633%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +550%	10−11 −550%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +613%	8−9 −613%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +617%	6−7 −617%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +606%	16−18 −606%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +660%	5−6 −660%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +550%	8−9 −550%
Valorant	60−65 +611%	9−10 −611%
World of Tanks	200−210 +570%	30−33 −570%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +629%	7−8 −629%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +600%	4−5 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +675%	4−5 −675%
Dota 2	55−60 +613%	8−9 −613%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +613%	8−9 −613%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +550%	10−11 −550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +606%	16−18 −606%
Valorant	60−65 +611%	9−10 −611%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%
Elden Ring	24−27 +733%	3−4 −733%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +600%	21−24 −600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
World of Tanks	110−120 +594%	16−18 −594%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +700%	4−5 −700%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +550%	6−7 −550%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +550%	6−7 −550%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +600%	5−6 −600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +567%	3−4 −567%
Valorant	40−45 +567%	6−7 −567%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Dota 2	27−30 +575%	4−5 −575%
Elden Ring	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +575%	4−5 −575%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +571%	7−8 −571%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +575%	4−5 −575%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Dota 2	27−30 +575%	4−5 −575%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +567%	3−4 −567%
Fortnite	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%
Valorant	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%

This is how R9 380 and Quadro 2000 compete in popular games:

R9 380 is 550% faster in 1080p
R9 380 is 575% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.89	2.46
Recency	18 June 2015	24 December 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	62 Watt

R9 380 has a 545.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 2000, on the other hand, has 206.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380 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.