Quadro M2000 vs Radeon R9 M390X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M390X with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.

R9 M390X
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
8.61

M2000 outperforms R9 M390X by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking461448
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.79
Power efficiency9.149.49
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameAmethystGM206
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)8 April 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$437.75

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores2048768
Core clock speed723 MHz796 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1163 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate92.5455.82
Floating-point processing power2.961 TFLOPS1.786 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs12848

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data201 mm
Widthno data1" (2.5 cm)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1653 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/sUp to 106 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displaysno data4
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Desktop Managementno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.44.5
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
Mantle+-
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.

R9 M390X 8.61
Quadro M2000 8.94
+3.8%

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 M390X 3850
Quadro M2000 3997
+3.8%

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 Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+2.5%
40−45
−2.5%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Fortnite 55−60
+1.8%
55−60
−1.8%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+2.5%
40−45
−2.5%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
−3.4%
30−33
+3.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+2.5%
40−45
−2.5%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+1.4%
140−150
−1.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Dota 2 65−70
−2.9%
70−75
+2.9%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Fortnite 55−60
+1.8%
55−60
−1.8%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+2.5%
40−45
−2.5%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
−3.4%
30−33
+3.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+2.5%
40−45
−2.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Dota 2 65−70
−2.9%
70−75
+2.9%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+2.5%
40−45
−2.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+1.8%
55−60
−1.8%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+1.4%
70−75
−1.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+2.2%
45−50
−2.2%
Valorant 100−110
+4%
100−105
−4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 45−50
−2%
50−55
+2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.61 8.94
Recency 5 May 2015 8 April 2016
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro M2000 has a 3.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 M390X and Quadro M2000.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M390X is a notebook card while Quadro M2000 is a workstation one.

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 M390X
Radeon R9 M390X
NVIDIA Quadro M2000
Quadro M2000

Other comparisons

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.


5 2 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M390X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 216 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M390X or Quadro M2000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.