RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU with RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by a whopping 187% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 388 | 118 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 23.55 |
| Architecture | no data | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) | 21 March 2023 (1 year 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 | 8 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 115 Watt (35 - 115 Watt TGP) |
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 | large |
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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 16000 MHz |
| Shared memory | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12 Ultimate |
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
−186%
| 80−85
+186%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−181%
|
90−95
+181%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−178%
|
75−80
+178%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−181%
|
90−95
+181%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−186%
|
160−170
+186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−178%
|
75−80
+178%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−173%
|
120−130
+173%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
−184%
|
210−220
+184%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−178%
|
150−160
+178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−179%
|
95−100
+179%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−183%
|
130−140
+183%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−170%
|
300−310
+170%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−181%
|
90−95
+181%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−186%
|
160−170
+186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
−178%
|
500−550
+178%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−178%
|
75−80
+178%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−182%
|
240−250
+182%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−173%
|
120−130
+173%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
−184%
|
210−220
+184%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−178%
|
150−160
+178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−179%
|
95−100
+179%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
−186%
|
140−150
+186%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−169%
|
70−75
+169%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−183%
|
130−140
+183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−179%
|
95−100
+179%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−170%
|
300−310
+170%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−186%
|
160−170
+186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−178%
|
75−80
+178%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−182%
|
240−250
+182%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−173%
|
120−130
+173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−178%
|
150−160
+178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−179%
|
95−100
+179%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−183%
|
130−140
+183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−179%
|
95−100
+179%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−170%
|
300−310
+170%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
−184%
|
210−220
+184%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
−178%
|
270−280
+178%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−175%
|
55−60
+175%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
−183%
|
300−310
+183%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−155%
|
350−400
+155%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−186%
|
100−105
+186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−186%
|
80−85
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−174%
|
85−90
+174%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−175%
|
55−60
+175%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
−186%
|
80−85
+186%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−171%
|
65−70
+171%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−165%
|
45−50
+165%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−175%
|
190−200
+175%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−178%
|
50−55
+178%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−183%
|
130−140
+183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−169%
|
35−40
+169%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−173%
|
60−65
+173%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is 186% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.74 | 39.50 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 21 March 2023 |
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile has a 187.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
The RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 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 graphics card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation 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.
