Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon R9 Nano
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Nano with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
R9 Nano outperforms T2000 Mobile by a small 6% 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 | 308 | 321 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.76 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.93 | 24.50 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 27 August 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.
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 | 1024 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 256 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 152 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no data |
| 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) | GDDR5 |
| 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 | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 128.0 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| 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 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D 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 | + | - |
| 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.
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.
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.
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
+7.1%
| 85−90
−7.1%
|
| 4K | 46
+15%
| 40−45
−15%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.13 | no data |
| 4K | 14.11 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+6.4%
|
110−120
−6.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4.8%
|
40−45
−4.8%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 45−50
+6.8%
|
40−45
−6.8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4.9%
|
80−85
−4.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+6.4%
|
110−120
−6.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4.8%
|
40−45
−4.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+6.3%
|
60−65
−6.3%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+4.9%
|
100−110
−4.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+5.1%
|
75−80
−5.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+6.6%
|
60−65
−6.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+8.1%
|
70−75
−8.1%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+3.4%
|
140−150
−3.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4.9%
|
80−85
−4.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+6.4%
|
110−120
−6.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+3.4%
|
230−240
−3.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4.8%
|
40−45
−4.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+3.6%
|
110−120
−3.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+6.3%
|
60−65
−6.3%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+4.9%
|
100−110
−4.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+5.1%
|
75−80
−5.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+6.6%
|
60−65
−6.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+5.6%
|
70−75
−5.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+7.1%
|
40−45
−7.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+8.1%
|
70−75
−8.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+7.3%
|
55−60
−7.3%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+3.4%
|
140−150
−3.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4.9%
|
80−85
−4.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4.8%
|
40−45
−4.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+3.6%
|
110−120
−3.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+6.3%
|
60−65
−6.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+5.1%
|
75−80
−5.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+8.1%
|
70−75
−8.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
−17%
|
55−60
+17%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+3.4%
|
140−150
−3.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+4.9%
|
100−110
−4.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40−45
−7.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+5.7%
|
140−150
−5.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+8.8%
|
30−35
−8.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+8%
|
24−27
−8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1.2%
|
170−180
−1.2%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+3.9%
|
180−190
−3.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+7.3%
|
55−60
−7.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+6.8%
|
40−45
−6.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+6.1%
|
45−50
−6.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+6.7%
|
45−50
−6.7%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+5.6%
|
35−40
−5.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+25%
|
27−30
−25%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+7.2%
|
110−120
−7.2%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+4.5%
|
65−70
−4.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+9.1%
|
21−24
−9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+5.9%
|
30−35
−5.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+5%
|
20−22
−5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+10%
|
20−22
−10%
|
This is how R9 Nano and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- R9 Nano is 7% faster in 1080p
- R9 Nano is 15% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 Nano is 25% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 17% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 Nano performs better in 58 tests (97%)
- T2000 Mobile performs better in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.29 | 19.09 |
| Recency | 27 August 2015 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 60 Watt |
R9 Nano has a 6.3% higher aggregate performance score.
T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 191.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 Nano and Quadro T2000 Mobile.
Be aware that Radeon R9 Nano is a desktop 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.
