Radeon R9 290 vs Quadro P2000

Place in the ranking	297	265
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.55	7.94
Power efficiency	17.35	5.27
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code name	GP106	Hawaii
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	5 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$585	$399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P2000 has 20% better value for money than R9 290.

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	1024	2560
Core clock speed	1076 MHz	947 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,400 million	6,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	275 Watt
Texture fill rate	94.72	151.5
Floating-point processing power	3.031 TFLOPS	4.849 TFLOPS
ROPs	40	64
TMUs	64	160

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	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	201 mm	275 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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	5 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	160 Bit	512 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	140.2 GB/s	320.0 GB/s

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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	6.4	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	6.1	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro P2000 18.90

R9 290 21.05
+11.4%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Quadro P2000 7268

R9 290 8093
+11.4%

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.

Quadro P2000 6847

R9 290 11860
+73.2%

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	58 −3.4%	60−65 +3.4%
1440p	20 −5%	21−24 +5%
4K	17 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.09 −51.7%	6.65 +51.7%
1440p	29.25 −53.9%	19.00 +53.9%
4K	34.41 −55.2%	22.17 +55.2%

R9 290 has 52% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R9 290 has 54% lower cost per frame in 1440p
R9 290 has 55% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −8.1%	40−45 +8.1%
Elden Ring	60−65 −8.3%	65−70 +8.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −8.3%	65−70 +8.3%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −8.1%	40−45 +8.1%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −7.6%	85−90 +7.6%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −7.8%	55−60 +7.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
Valorant	75−80 −5.3%	80−85 +5.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −8.3%	65−70 +8.3%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −8.1%	40−45 +8.1%
Dota 2	34 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Elden Ring	60−65 −8.3%	65−70 +8.3%
Far Cry 5	72 −11.1%	80−85 +11.1%
Fortnite	100−110 −8.9%	110−120 +8.9%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −7.6%	85−90 +7.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 −4.5%	70−75 +4.5%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −7.8%	55−60 +7.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	137 −9.5%	150−160 +9.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −10.2%	65−70 +10.2%
Valorant	75−80 −5.3%	80−85 +5.3%
World of Tanks	220−230 −7.1%	240−250 +7.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −8.3%	65−70 +8.3%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −8.1%	40−45 +8.1%
Dota 2	98 −2%	100−105 +2%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −9.4%	70−75 +9.4%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −7.6%	85−90 +7.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	75−80 −5.3%	80−85 +5.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 −3.4%	30−33 +3.4%
Elden Ring	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 −7.1%	180−190 +7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
World of Tanks	120−130 −8.5%	140−150 +8.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −10%	55−60 +10%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −4.2%	50−55 +4.2%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −8%	27−30 +8%
Valorant	45−50 −4.2%	50−55 +4.2%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Dota 2	30−35 −9.4%	35−40 +9.4%
Elden Ring	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 −9.4%	35−40 +9.4%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	39 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −9.4%	35−40 +9.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 −9.4%	35−40 +9.4%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Fortnite	21−24 −9.1%	24−27 +9.1%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%
Valorant	21−24 −9.1%	24−27 +9.1%

This is how Quadro P2000 and R9 290 compete in popular games:

R9 290 is 3% faster in 1080p
R9 290 is 5% faster in 1440p
R9 290 is 6% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.90	21.05
Recency	6 February 2017	5 November 2013
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	275 Watt

Quadro P2000 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.

R9 290, on the other hand, has a 11.4% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 290 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.