Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs Radeon R9 FURY X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
255 OEM 260 OEM 270 270 1024SP 270X 280 280X 280X2 285 290 290X 290X2 295X2 360 OEM 370 370 1024SP 370X 380 380 OEM 380X 390 390 X2 390X 390X2 A375 Fury FURY X FURY X2 Nano
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
T400 Mobile T500 Mobile T600 Mobile T1000 Mobile T1000 Max-Q T1200 Max-Q T1200 Mobile T2000 Mobile T2000 Max-Q T500 Max-Q T550 Mobile T600 Max-Q

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 FURY X with Quadro T2000 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

R9 FURY X
2015, $649
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
22.42
+34.1%

R9 FURY X outperforms T2000 Max-Q by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
T2000 Max-Q T2000 Max-Q

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking285359
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.81no data
Power efficiency6.2832.19
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameFijiTU117
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date24 June 2015 (10 years ago)27 May 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores40961024
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data1200 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz1620 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate268.8103.7
Floating-point processing power8.602 TFLOPS3.318 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs25664
L1 Cache1 MB1 MB
L2 Cache2 MB1024 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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length195 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinNone
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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1050 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

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

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
Mantle+-
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.

R9 FURY X 22.42
+34.1%
T2000 Max-Q 16.72

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 FURY X 9348
+33.2%
Samples: 187
T2000 Max-Q 7016
Samples: 736

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 FURY X 16710
+102%
T2000 Max-Q 8262

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 HD75−80
+31.6%
57
−31.6%
1440p30−35
+15.4%
26
−15.4%
4K50−55
+31.6%
38
−31.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.65no data
1440p21.63no data
4K12.98no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Dota 2 124
+0%
124
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 33
+0%
33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 63
+0%
63
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Dota 2 113
+0%
113
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+0%
33
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 95−100
+0%
95−100
+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%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how R9 FURY X and T2000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • R9 FURY X is 32% faster in 1080p
  • R9 FURY X is 15% faster in 1440p
  • R9 FURY X is 32% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 22.42 16.72
Recency 24 June 2015 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 40 Watt

R9 FURY X has a 34% higher aggregate performance score.

T2000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 133% more advanced lithography process, and 588% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 FURY X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T2000 Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 FURY X is a desktop 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.

R9 FURY X Radeon R9 FURY X
vs
RX 590 Radeon RX 590
T2000 Max-Q Quadro T2000 Max-Q
vs
T600 Mobile Quadro T600 Mobile
R9 FURY X Radeon R9 FURY X
vs
GTX 780 Ti GeForce GTX 780 Ti
R9 370X R9 370X
vs
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
vs
GTX 980M SLI GTX 980M SLI
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
vs
RX 470 RX 470
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
vs
GT 415 OEM GT 415 OEM
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
vs
Quadro GV100 GV100
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
vs
Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
vs
H200 SXM 141 GB H200 SXM 141 GB
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
vs
RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell
R7 360 R7 360
vs
GeForce 820M 820M
R7 360 R7 360
vs
GT 730 OEM GT 730 OEM

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.2 91 votes

Rate Radeon R9 FURY X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 108 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 FURY X or Quadro T2000 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.