Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) vs Quadro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2000 with Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000), including specs and performance data.
M2000 outperforms RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by an impressive 71% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 448 | 597 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.11 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.50 | 27.70 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | Vega Renoir |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 768 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.82 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.786 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 48 | no 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 201 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 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 | 128 Bit | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 106 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | + |
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 | 4x DisplayPort | no data |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
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 | 35−40
+66.7%
| 21
−66.7%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
+52.2%
| 23
−52.2%
|
| 4K | 30−35
+66.7%
| 18
−66.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.51 | no data |
| 1440p | 12.51 | no data |
| 4K | 14.59 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Valorant | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how Quadro M2000 and RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) compete in popular games:
- Quadro M2000 is 67% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M2000 is 52% faster in 1440p
- Quadro M2000 is 67% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.39 | 6.06 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 7 January 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
Quadro M2000 has a 71.5% higher aggregate performance score.
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
