Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile vs Quadro P2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking291not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.63no data
Power efficiency17.39no data
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGP106Renoir
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)6 January 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$585 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 cores1024384
Core clock speed1076 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors4,400 million9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate94.7236.00
Floating-point processing power3.031 TFLOPS1.152 TFLOPS
ROPs408
TMUs6424

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 x16IGP
Length201 mmno data
Width1-slotno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount5 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width160 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1752 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth140.2 GB/sno 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 outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA6.1-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 February 2017 6 January 2020
Chip lithography 16 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 15 Watt

Graphics 384SP Mobile has an age advantage of 2 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro P2000 and Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile is a desktop 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 P2000
Quadro P2000
AMD Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile
Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile

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.


3.5 627 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 5 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile 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.