RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by a whopping 230% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 379 | 76 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 83.88 |
Power efficiency | no data | 44.39 |
Architecture | no data | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
GPU code name | no data | AD107 |
Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
Release date | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) | 12 February 2024 (less than a year ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 8 | 2816 |
Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 1620 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 2130 MHz |
Number of transistors | no data | 18,900 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 5 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 70 Watt |
Texture fill rate | no data | 187.4 |
Floating-point processing power | no data | 12 TFLOPS |
ROPs | no data | 48 |
TMUs | no data | 88 |
Tensor Cores | no data | 88 |
Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 22 |
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).
Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
Length | no data | 168 mm |
Width | no data | 2-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR6 |
Maximum RAM amount | no data | 16 GB |
Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 256.0 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 | no data | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | no data | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
CUDA | - | 8.9 |
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 | 27
−215%
| 85−90
+215%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | no data | 7.64 |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−226%
|
75−80
+226%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−215%
|
85−90
+215%
|
Elden Ring | 40−45
−210%
|
130−140
+210%
|
Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−211%
|
140−150
+211%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−226%
|
75−80
+226%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−215%
|
85−90
+215%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−221%
|
180−190
+221%
|
Metro Exodus | 35−40
−216%
|
120−130
+216%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−224%
|
110−120
+224%
|
Valorant | 55−60
−227%
|
180−190
+227%
|
Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−211%
|
140−150
+211%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−226%
|
75−80
+226%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−215%
|
85−90
+215%
|
Dota 2 | 50−55
−220%
|
160−170
+220%
|
Elden Ring | 40−45
−210%
|
130−140
+210%
|
Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−227%
|
170−180
+227%
|
Fortnite | 75−80
−225%
|
250−260
+225%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−221%
|
180−190
+221%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
−227%
|
160−170
+227%
|
Metro Exodus | 35−40
−216%
|
120−130
+216%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
−200%
|
300−310
+200%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−224%
|
110−120
+224%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−210%
|
130−140
+210%
|
Valorant | 55−60
−227%
|
180−190
+227%
|
World of Tanks | 180−190
−230%
|
600−650
+230%
|
Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−211%
|
140−150
+211%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−226%
|
75−80
+226%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−215%
|
85−90
+215%
|
Dota 2 | 50−55
−220%
|
160−170
+220%
|
Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−227%
|
170−180
+227%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−221%
|
180−190
+221%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
−200%
|
300−310
+200%
|
Valorant | 55−60
−227%
|
180−190
+227%
|
Dota 2 | 20−22
−225%
|
65−70
+225%
|
Elden Ring | 21−24
−210%
|
65−70
+210%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−225%
|
65−70
+225%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
−221%
|
350−400
+221%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
World of Tanks | 95−100
−209%
|
300−310
+209%
|
Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−215%
|
85−90
+215%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−213%
|
100−105
+213%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−213%
|
100−105
+213%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−203%
|
100−105
+203%
|
Metro Exodus | 27−30
−228%
|
95−100
+228%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−206%
|
55−60
+206%
|
Valorant | 30−35
−224%
|
110−120
+224%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
Dota 2 | 24−27
−213%
|
75−80
+213%
|
Elden Ring | 9−10
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−213%
|
75−80
+213%
|
Metro Exodus | 9−10
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−225%
|
130−140
+225%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−213%
|
75−80
+213%
|
Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−208%
|
40−45
+208%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
Dota 2 | 24−27
−213%
|
75−80
+213%
|
Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−224%
|
55−60
+224%
|
Fortnite | 14−16
−200%
|
45−50
+200%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
Valorant | 14−16
−200%
|
45−50
+200%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 215% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 13.71 | 45.20 |
Recency | 10 November 2020 | 12 February 2024 |
RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 229.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 years.
The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the M1 8-Core GPU in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.