Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon RX 480

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 480 with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

RX 480
2016
8 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
22.36
+7.6%

RX 480 outperforms T2000 Mobile by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking252270
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation15.84no data
Power efficiency10.2823.89
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameEllesmereTU117
GCN generation4th Genno data
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date29 June 2016 (8 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores23041024
Compute units36no data
Core clock speed1120 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1266 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors5,700 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate182.3114.2
Floating-point processing power5.834 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs14464

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 supportn/ano data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed8000 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth224 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI2.0-
DisplayPort support1.4HDR-

Supported technologies

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

AppAccelerationn/a-
CrossFire+-
Enduron/a-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3Dn/a-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudion/a-
ZeroCore+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
Mantlen/a-
CUDA-7.5

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

RX 480 22.36
+7.6%
T2000 Mobile 20.78

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.

RX 480 8594
+7.6%
T2000 Mobile 7985

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.

RX 480 17919
+32.5%
T2000 Mobile 13524

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 HD77
+10%
70−75
−10%
1440p52
+15.6%
45−50
−15.6%
4K35
+16.7%
30−35
−16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.97no data
1440p4.40no data
4K6.54no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+8.1%
35−40
−8.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+7.1%
40−45
−7.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
+6.1%
65−70
−6.1%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+8.1%
35−40
−8.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+7.1%
40−45
−7.1%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+9.1%
85−90
−9.1%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+7.3%
55−60
−7.3%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+7.1%
55−60
−7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+6.4%
45−50
−6.4%
Valorant 90−95
+7.1%
80−85
−7.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
+6.1%
65−70
−6.1%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+8.1%
35−40
−8.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+7.1%
40−45
−7.1%
Dota 2 52
−40.4%
70−75
+40.4%
Far Cry 5 51
−35.3%
65−70
+35.3%
Fortnite 110−120
+5.5%
100−110
−5.5%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+9.1%
85−90
−9.1%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+7.3%
55−60
−7.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 78
+6.8%
70−75
−6.8%
Metro Exodus 16
−250%
55−60
+250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 78
−76.9%
130−140
+76.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 34
−38.2%
45−50
+38.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
−120%
65−70
+120%
Valorant 90−95
+7.1%
80−85
−7.1%
World of Tanks 285
+20.8%
230−240
−20.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
+6.1%
65−70
−6.1%
Counter-Strike 2 29
−27.6%
35−40
+27.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+7.1%
40−45
−7.1%
Dota 2 75−80
+6.8%
70−75
−6.8%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+4.3%
65−70
−4.3%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+9.1%
85−90
−9.1%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+7.3%
55−60
−7.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 64
−116%
130−140
+116%
Valorant 90−95
+7.1%
80−85
−7.1%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 37
+12.1%
30−35
−12.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 37
+8.8%
30−35
−8.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+1.2%
170−180
−1.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21
+10.5%
18−20
−10.5%
World of Tanks 150−160
+7.1%
140−150
−7.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+7.1%
40−45
−7.1%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+10.5%
55−60
−10.5%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+9.3%
50−55
−9.3%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+9.1%
30−35
−9.1%
Metro Exodus 50
+6.4%
45−50
−6.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+10.3%
27−30
−10.3%
Valorant 55−60
+9.3%
50−55
−9.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+11.8%
16−18
−11.8%
Dota 2 36
+2.9%
35−40
−2.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 36
+2.9%
35−40
−2.9%
Metro Exodus 15
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70
+12.9%
60−65
−12.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+2.9%
35−40
−2.9%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+11.8%
16−18
−11.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Dota 2 88
+151%
35−40
−151%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
Fortnite 28
+12%
24−27
−12%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%
Forza Horizon 5 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Valorant 27−30
+12%
24−27
−12%

This is how RX 480 and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RX 480 is 10% faster in 1080p
  • RX 480 is 16% faster in 1440p
  • RX 480 is 17% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 480 is 151% faster.
  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 480 is ahead in 54 tests (84%)
  • T2000 Mobile is ahead in 8 tests (13%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.36 20.78
Recency 29 June 2016 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 60 Watt

RX 480 has a 7.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 480 and Quadro T2000 Mobile.

Be aware that Radeon RX 480 is a desktop card while Quadro T2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 RX 480
Radeon RX 480
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
Quadro T2000 Mobile

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.


4.2 1890 votes

Rate Radeon RX 480 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 398 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.