Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon RX Vega 11

Place in the ranking	609	269
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	10.80	23.83
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Raven	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	10 May 2018 (6 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 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 cores	704	1024
Core clock speed	300 MHz	1575 MHz
Boost clock speed	1251 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	4,940 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.04	114.2
Floating-point processing power	1.761 TFLOPS	3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	32
TMUs	44	64

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
Interface	IGP	PCIe 3.0 x16
Width	IGP	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	System Shared	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	4 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	128.0 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 Connectors

Motherboard Dependent

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.7 (6.4)	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.1	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.2.131
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 Vega 11 5.49

T2000 Mobile 20.77
+278%

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 Vega 11 2109

T2000 Mobile 7985
+279%

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 Vega 11 5483

T2000 Mobile 13524
+147%

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	28 −257%	100−110 +257%
1440p	5 −260%	18−20 +260%
4K	12 −275%	45−50 +275%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −185%	35−40 +185%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −273%	40−45 +273%
Elden Ring	14−16 −371%	65−70 +371%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −288%	65−70 +288%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −185%	35−40 +185%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −273%	40−45 +273%
Forza Horizon 4	20 −340%	85−90 +340%
Metro Exodus	18 −211%	55−60 +211%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −194%	45−50 +194%
Valorant	14−16 −460%	80−85 +460%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −288%	65−70 +288%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −185%	35−40 +185%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −273%	40−45 +273%
Dota 2	27 −170%	70−75 +170%
Elden Ring	14−16 −371%	65−70 +371%
Far Cry 5	30 −127%	65−70 +127%
Fortnite	30−35 −241%	100−110 +241%
Forza Horizon 4	17 −418%	85−90 +418%
Grand Theft Auto V	17 −329%	70−75 +329%
Metro Exodus	11 −409%	55−60 +409%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	54 −156%	130−140 +156%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −194%	45−50 +194%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −267%	65−70 +267%
Valorant	14−16 −460%	80−85 +460%
World of Tanks	85−90 −168%	230−240 +168%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −288%	65−70 +288%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −185%	35−40 +185%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −273%	40−45 +273%
Dota 2	42 −73.8%	70−75 +73.8%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −162%	65−70 +162%
Forza Horizon 4	15 −487%	85−90 +487%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −200%	130−140 +200%
Valorant	14−16 −460%	80−85 +460%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	5−6 −560%	30−35 +560%
Elden Ring	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 −580%	30−35 +580%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −391%	170−180 +391%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −375%	18−20 +375%
World of Tanks	40−45 −250%	140−150 +250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −367%	40−45 +367%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −88.9%	16−18 +88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −325%	16−18 +325%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −375%	55−60 +375%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −575%	50−55 +575%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −840%	45−50 +840%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −314%	27−30 +314%
Valorant	14−16 −260%	50−55 +260%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −106%	35−40 +106%
Elden Ring	3−4 −400%	14−16 +400%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −106%	35−40 +106%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −1400%	14−16 +1400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	15 −313%	60−65 +313%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −333%	12−14 +333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −106%	35−40 +106%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −320%	21−24 +320%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Dota 2	17 −106%	35−40 +106%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −350%	27−30 +350%
Fortnite	5−6 −400%	24−27 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −675%	30−35 +675%
Valorant	5−6 −400%	24−27 +400%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

This is how RX Vega 11 and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

T2000 Mobile is 257% faster in 1080p
T2000 Mobile is 260% faster in 1440p
T2000 Mobile is 275% faster in 4K

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

in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 1400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

T2000 Mobile is ahead in 61 test (97%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.49	20.77
Recency	10 May 2018	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	60 Watt

RX Vega 11 has 71.4% lower power consumption.

T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 278.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 11 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 11 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.