Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon R9 380
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 380 with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T2000 Mobile outperforms R9 380 by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 315 | 249 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.08 | 4.86 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | Tonga Pro | N19P-Q3 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 26 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
| Current price | $12.90 (0.1x MSRP) | $2221 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R9 380 has 87% better value for money than T2000 Mobile.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1792 | 1024 |
| Compute units | 28 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 970 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 108.6 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,476 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R9 380 and Quadro T2000 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / full length / dual slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | no data |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | 1 | no data |
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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 970 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 182.4 GB/s | 128.0 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | no data |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| DisplayPort support | + | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | no data |
| CrossFire | 1 | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| FRTC | 1 | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no data |
| HD3D | + | no data |
| LiquidVR | 1 | no data |
| PowerTune | + | no data |
| TrueAudio | + | no data |
| ZeroCore | + | no data |
| VCE | + | no data |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | no data |
| CUDA | no data | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Quadro T2000 Mobile outperforms Radeon R9 380 by 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro T2000 Mobile outperforms Radeon R9 380 by 30% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Quadro T2000 Mobile outperforms Radeon R9 380 by 11% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 | 63
−27%
| 80−85
+27%
|
| 4K | 24
−25%
| 30−35
+25%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−32%
|
30−35
+32%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
−25%
|
40−45
+25%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24−27
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−30.8%
|
65−70
+30.8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
−31.3%
|
40−45
+31.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−32%
|
30−35
+32%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−29.7%
|
45−50
+29.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 40−45
−27.9%
|
55−60
+27.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−24%
|
90−95
+24%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
−32.3%
|
40−45
+32.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65
−30.2%
|
80−85
+30.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
−30.2%
|
65−70
+30.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
−27.3%
|
55−60
+27.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 50−55
−36%
|
65−70
+36%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
−21.6%
|
60−65
+21.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
−25%
|
40−45
+25%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24−27
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−30.8%
|
65−70
+30.8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
−31.3%
|
40−45
+31.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−32%
|
30−35
+32%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−29.7%
|
45−50
+29.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 40−45
−27.9%
|
55−60
+27.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−24%
|
90−95
+24%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
−32.3%
|
40−45
+32.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65
−30.2%
|
80−85
+30.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
−30.2%
|
65−70
+30.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
−27.3%
|
55−60
+27.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 50−55
−36%
|
65−70
+36%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
+13.3%
|
45−50
−13.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
−21.6%
|
60−65
+21.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
−25%
|
40−45
+25%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24−27
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
−31.3%
|
40−45
+31.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−32%
|
30−35
+32%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−29.7%
|
45−50
+29.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−24%
|
90−95
+24%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65
−30.2%
|
80−85
+30.2%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 50−55
−36%
|
65−70
+36%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
−50%
|
45−50
+50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
−21.6%
|
60−65
+21.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
−27.3%
|
55−60
+27.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
−40%
|
40−45
+40%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
−46.2%
|
18−20
+46.2%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20−22
−35%
|
27−30
+35%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−32.3%
|
40−45
+32.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
−31.3%
|
40−45
+31.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−39.3%
|
35−40
+39.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
−43.3%
|
40−45
+43.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−30.8%
|
30−35
+30.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−35.3%
|
21−24
+35.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−27.3%
|
27−30
+27.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−35.3%
|
21−24
+35.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
This is how R9 380 and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is 27% faster in 1080p
- T2000 Mobile is 25% 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 High Preset, the R9 380 is 13% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 380 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- T2000 Mobile is ahead in 71 test (99%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.91 | 20.68 |
| Recency | 26 June 2015 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 60 Watt |
The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 380 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop card while Quadro T2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
