Radeon Picasso vs Quadro P2000

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 evaluation9.70no data
Power efficiency17.52no data
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGP106Picasso
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)no data (2024 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 cores1024640
Core clock speed1076 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHz1301 MHz
Number of transistors4,400 million4,940 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate94.7252.04
Floating-point processing power3.031 TFLOPS1.665 TFLOPS
ROPs408
TMUs6440

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-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA6.1-

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 16 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 10 Watt

Picasso has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro P2000 and Radeon Picasso. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Picasso 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 Picasso
Radeon Picasso

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.


3.5 631 vote

Rate Quadro P2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 3 votes

Rate Radeon Picasso 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.