Radeon RX Vega 9 vs Quadro M2000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000 with Radeon RX Vega 9, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M2000
2016
4 GB 128-bit, 75 Watt
10.34
+86.3%

M2000 outperforms RX Vega 9 by an impressive 86% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking441606
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.63no data
Power efficiency9.4425.34
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGM206Vega Raven Ridge
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date8 April 2016 (8 years ago)26 October 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 cores768576
Core clock speed796 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1163 MHz1300 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate55.82no data
Floating-point processing power1.786 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs48no 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 3.0 x16no data
Length201 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no 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 type128 Bitno data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1653 MHzno data
Memory bandwidthUp to 106 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortno data
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_1
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
CUDA5.2-

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 HD30−35
+66.7%
18
−66.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p14.59no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 21
+0%
21
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 16
+0%
16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
+0%
8
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and RX Vega 9 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro M2000 is 67% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 69 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.34 5.55
Recency 8 April 2016 26 October 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 15 Watt

Quadro M2000 has a 86.3% higher aggregate performance score.

RX Vega 9, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 9 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while Radeon RX Vega 9 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 M2000
Quadro M2000
AMD Radeon RX Vega 9
Radeon RX Vega 9

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.


3.8 210 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 21 vote

Rate Radeon RX Vega 9 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.