Quadro M2000 vs Radeon R9 Nano
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Nano with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.
R9 Nano outperforms M2000 by a whopping 111% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 307 | 491 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.76 | 1.59 |
| Power efficiency | 8.90 | 9.85 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GM206 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 27 August 2015 (10 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $437.75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 Nano has 199% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
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 cores | 4096 | 768 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 | 55.82 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS | 1.786 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 256 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 288 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 152 mm | 201 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | 128 Bit |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | Up to 106 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| 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.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 5.2 |
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.
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.
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 | 91
+128%
| 40−45
−128%
|
| 4K | 46
+119%
| 21−24
−119%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.13
+53.4%
| 10.94
−53.4%
|
| 4K | 14.11
+47.7%
| 20.85
−47.7%
|
- R9 Nano has 53% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 Nano has 48% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+115%
|
55−60
−115%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+144%
|
18−20
−144%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+113%
|
40−45
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+115%
|
55−60
−115%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+144%
|
18−20
−144%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+134%
|
35−40
−134%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+123%
|
30−33
−123%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+114%
|
50−55
−114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+137%
|
35−40
−137%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+117%
|
30−33
−117%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+129%
|
35−40
−129%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+116%
|
70−75
−116%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+113%
|
40−45
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+115%
|
55−60
−115%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+119%
|
110−120
−119%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+144%
|
18−20
−144%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+128%
|
50−55
−128%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+134%
|
35−40
−134%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+123%
|
30−33
−123%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+114%
|
50−55
−114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+137%
|
35−40
−137%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+117%
|
30−33
−117%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+120%
|
35−40
−120%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+129%
|
35−40
−129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+116%
|
70−75
−116%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+113%
|
40−45
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+144%
|
18−20
−144%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+128%
|
50−55
−128%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+134%
|
35−40
−134%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+123%
|
30−33
−123%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+137%
|
35−40
−137%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+129%
|
35−40
−129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+116%
|
70−75
−116%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+114%
|
50−55
−114%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+139%
|
18−20
−139%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+113%
|
70−75
−113%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+116%
|
80−85
−116%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+120%
|
85−90
−120%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+117%
|
24−27
−117%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+129%
|
14−16
−129%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+116%
|
55−60
−116%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+129%
|
14−16
−129%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+133%
|
30−33
−133%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
This is how R9 Nano and Quadro M2000 compete in popular games:
- R9 Nano is 128% faster in 1080p
- R9 Nano is 119% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.29 | 9.62 |
| Recency | 27 August 2015 | 8 April 2016 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 75 Watt |
R9 Nano has a 110.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro M2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 Nano is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 Nano is a desktop graphics card while Quadro M2000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
