Radeon R7 240 vs Quadro P2000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 Mobile with Radeon R7 240, including specs and performance data.
P2000 Mobile outperforms R7 240 by a whopping 563% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 401 | 919 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 14.70 | 5.54 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | Oland |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 15 February 2019 (7 years ago) | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $69 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1152 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 1291 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1291 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.95 | 14.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.974 TFLOPS | 0.448 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 72 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 432 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1280 KB | 256 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | N/A |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3.75 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.13 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | - |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 14.32 | 2.16 |
| Recency | 15 February 2019 | 8 October 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3.75 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
P2000 Mobile has a 563% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 88% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
R7 240, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 240 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
