Radeon Pro 5600M vs Quadro T2000 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro T2000 Max-Q and Radeon Pro 5600M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro 5600M outperforms T2000 Max-Q by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 324 | 248 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 30.53 | 32.74 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Navi 12 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) | 15 June 2020 (4 years ago) |
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 | 1200 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 103.7 | 164.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.318 TFLOPS | 5.274 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 770 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 394.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 57
−31.6%
| 75−80
+31.6%
|
| 1440p | 26
−15.4%
| 30−35
+15.4%
|
| 4K | 38
−31.6%
| 50−55
+31.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
−38.6%
|
60−65
+38.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−35.4%
|
130−140
+35.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−40%
|
45−50
+40%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
−38.6%
|
60−65
+38.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−26.8%
|
90−95
+26.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−35.4%
|
130−140
+35.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−40%
|
45−50
+40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−31.6%
|
75−80
+31.6%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
−22.8%
|
110−120
+22.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−30.4%
|
90−95
+30.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−35.8%
|
70−75
+35.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−40.3%
|
85−90
+40.3%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−19.7%
|
150−160
+19.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
−38.6%
|
60−65
+38.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−26.8%
|
90−95
+26.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−35.4%
|
130−140
+35.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
−16.4%
|
240−250
+16.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−40%
|
45−50
+40%
|
| Dota 2 | 124
+5.1%
|
110−120
−5.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−31.6%
|
75−80
+31.6%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
−22.8%
|
110−120
+22.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−30.4%
|
90−95
+30.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−35.8%
|
70−75
+35.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
−31.7%
|
80−85
+31.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
−48.5%
|
45−50
+48.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−40.3%
|
85−90
+40.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63
−6.3%
|
65−70
+6.3%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−19.7%
|
150−160
+19.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−26.8%
|
90−95
+26.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−40%
|
45−50
+40%
|
| Dota 2 | 113
−4.4%
|
110−120
+4.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−31.6%
|
75−80
+31.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−30.4%
|
90−95
+30.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−40.3%
|
85−90
+40.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
−103%
|
65−70
+103%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−19.7%
|
150−160
+19.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
−22.8%
|
110−120
+22.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−44.1%
|
45−50
+44.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−30.1%
|
160−170
+30.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
−8.8%
|
170−180
+8.8%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−19.4%
|
190−200
+19.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−34%
|
60−65
+34%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−46.7%
|
21−24
+46.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−37.8%
|
50−55
+37.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−38.1%
|
55−60
+38.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−37%
|
35−40
+37%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
−39.5%
|
50−55
+39.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−35.5%
|
40−45
+35.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−46.2%
|
18−20
+46.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−37.5%
|
30−35
+37.5%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−38.3%
|
130−140
+38.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−36%
|
30−35
+36%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 46
−63%
|
75−80
+63%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−44.4%
|
24−27
+44.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−37.9%
|
40−45
+37.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−43.8%
|
21−24
+43.8%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
This is how T2000 Max-Q and Pro 5600M compete in popular games:
- Pro 5600M is 32% faster in 1080p
- Pro 5600M is 15% faster in 1440p
- Pro 5600M is 32% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Max-Q is 5% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 5600M is 103% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T2000 Max-Q is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Pro 5600M is ahead in 62 tests (98%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.41 | 20.66 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 15 June 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 50 Watt |
T2000 Max-Q has 25% lower power consumption.
Pro 5600M, on the other hand, has a 34.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro 5600M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T2000 Max-Q in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
