ATI Radeon Xpress X1250 vs Quadro 2000D

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking829not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.13no data
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)no data
GPU code nameGF106RS690M
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date5 October 2011 (12 years ago)1 February 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1924
Core clock speed625 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data350 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)62 Wattno data
Texture fill rate20.00no data
Floating-point performance0.48 gflopsno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length178 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount1 GB128 MB
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed2600 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth41.6 GB/sno data
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 Connectors2x DVIno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)no data
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA2.1-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 5 October 2011 1 February 2007
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm

Quadro 2000D has an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Quadro 2000D and Radeon Xpress X1250. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro 2000D is a workstation card while Radeon Xpress X1250 is a notebook 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.


NVIDIA Quadro 2000D
Quadro 2000D
ATI Radeon Xpress X1250
Radeon Xpress X1250

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 15 votes

Rate Quadro 2000D on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 12 votes

Rate Radeon Xpress X1250 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.