Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
E8950 R9 M295X R9 M295X Mac Edition R9 M390X R9 M395X R9 M395X Mac Edition R9 M485X
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 M295X Mac Edition with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R9 M295X Mac Edition
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
12.35

T2000 Mobile outperforms R9 M295X Mac Edition by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 M295X Mac Edition R9 M295X Mac Edition
T2000 Mobile T2000 Mobile

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking441321
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.8024.50
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameAmethystTU117
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date23 November 2014 (11 years ago)27 May 2019 (6 years ago)

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 cores20481024
Core clock speed850 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate108.8114.2
Floating-point processing power3.482 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs12864
L1 Cache512 KB1 MB
L2 Cache512 KB1024 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
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1362 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth174.3 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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

Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 12.35 19.09
Recency 23 November 2014 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 60 Watt

T2000 Mobile has a 55% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 133% more advanced lithography process, and 317% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T2000 Mobile 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 M295X Mac Edition Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
vs
R9 M295X Radeon R9 M295X
T2000 Mobile Quadro T2000 Mobile
vs
Quadro M5500 Quadro M5500
R9 M295X Mac Edition Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
vs
Arc Graphics 140V Arc Graphics 140V
R9 M295X Mac Edition AMD R9 M295X Mac Edition
vs
Pro WX 4150 4150
R9 M295X Mac Edition AMD R9 M295X Mac Edition
vs
Pro WX 4130 4130
R9 M295X Mac Edition AMD R9 M295X Mac Edition
vs
ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 PRO 9600 PRO
R9 M295X Mac Edition AMD R9 M295X Mac Edition
vs
Go 6200 TE 6200 TE
R9 M295X Mac Edition AMD R9 M295X Mac Edition
vs
ATI V8750 V8750
R9 M295X Mac Edition AMD R9 M295X Mac Edition
vs
RX 6550M 6550M
R5 M230 Rebrand AMD R5 M230 Rebrand
vs
ATI All-In-Wonder X1800 XL X1800 XL
R5 M230 Rebrand AMD R5 M230 Rebrand
vs
7300 GT Mac Edition 7300 GT Mac Edition
R5 M230 Rebrand AMD R5 M230 Rebrand
vs
7800 GT Dual 7800 GT Dual
R5 M230 Rebrand AMD R5 M230 Rebrand
vs
GeForce4 MX 440-8x 440-8x

Community ratings

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

2.8 6 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 503 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition or Quadro T2000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.