Radeon Instinct MI25 vs Quadro M2000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000 and Radeon Instinct MI25, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro M2000
2016
4 GB 128-bit, 75 Watt
10.33

Instinct MI25 outperforms M2000 by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking440389
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.46no data
Power efficiency9.603.00
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGM206Vega 10
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date8 April 2016 (8 years ago)27 June 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$437.75 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 cores7684096
Core clock speed796 MHz1400 MHz
Boost clock speed1163 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate55.82384.0
Floating-point processing power1.786 TFLOPS12.29 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs48256

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 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length201 mm267 mm
Width1" (2.5 cm)2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 8-pin

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 type128 BitHBM2
Maximum RAM amount4 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz852 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 106 GB/s436.2 GB/s

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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs
Number of simultaneous displays4no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.125
CUDA5.2-

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.

Quadro M2000 10.33
Instinct MI25 12.91
+25%

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.

Quadro M2000 3984
Instinct MI25 4978
+24.9%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro M2000 14536
Instinct MI25 67679
+366%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro M2000 14240
Instinct MI25 71503
+402%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.33 12.91
Recency 8 April 2016 27 June 2017
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 300 Watt

Quadro M2000 has 300% lower power consumption.

Instinct MI25, on the other hand, has a 25% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Instinct MI25 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.


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 M2000
Quadro M2000
AMD Radeon Instinct MI25
Radeon Instinct MI25

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.


3.8 202 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 13 votes

Rate Radeon Instinct MI25 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.