Radeon Vega 7 vs Quadro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2000 with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
M2000 outperforms Vega 7 by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 442 | 532 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 18 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.63 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.45 | 11.38 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.82 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.786 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 48 | 28 |
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 | IGP |
| Length | 201 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | System Shared |
| 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 outputs |
| 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| 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 | 30−35
+36.4%
| 22
−36.4%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
+25%
| 32
−25%
|
| 4K | 21−24
+31.3%
| 16
−31.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 14.59 | no data |
| 1440p | 10.94 | no data |
| 4K | 20.85 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.34 | 7.47 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 45 Watt |
Quadro M2000 has a 38.4% higher aggregate performance score.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Vega 7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while Radeon Vega 7 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
