Radeon Pro W6600 vs Quadro T2000 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro T2000 Max-Q with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600 outperforms T2000 Max-Q by a whopping 127% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 305 | 99 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 73.67 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2023) |
| GPU code name | N19P-Q3 MAX-Q | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 930 / 1200 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 / 1620 MHz | 2903 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 - 40 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 103.7 | 325.1 |
| Floating-point performance | 3.318 gflops | 10.4 gflops |
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 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz | 14 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 4x DisplayPort |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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 | 56
−114%
| 120−130
+114%
|
| 1440p | 26
−112%
| 55−60
+112%
|
| 4K | 35
−114%
| 75−80
+114%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 53
−126%
|
120−130
+126%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−33
−117%
|
65−70
+117%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−124%
|
130−140
+124%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 35−40
−122%
|
80−85
+122%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−126%
|
95−100
+126%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45−50
−108%
|
100−105
+108%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
−121%
|
250−260
+121%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
−121%
|
75−80
+121%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 85−90
−116%
|
190−200
+116%
|
| Metro Exodus | 86
−121%
|
190−200
+121%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 64
−119%
|
140−150
+119%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55−60
−120%
|
130−140
+120%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 85−90
−121%
|
190−200
+121%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40−45
−125%
|
90−95
+125%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−33
−117%
|
65−70
+117%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−124%
|
130−140
+124%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 35−40
−122%
|
80−85
+122%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−126%
|
95−100
+126%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45−50
−108%
|
100−105
+108%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
−121%
|
250−260
+121%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
−121%
|
75−80
+121%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 85−90
−116%
|
190−200
+116%
|
| Metro Exodus | 69
−117%
|
150−160
+117%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
−108%
|
100−105
+108%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55−60
−120%
|
130−140
+120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−120%
|
90−95
+120%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 85−90
−121%
|
190−200
+121%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25
−120%
|
55−60
+120%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−33
−117%
|
65−70
+117%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 35−40
−122%
|
80−85
+122%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−126%
|
95−100
+126%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
−121%
|
250−260
+121%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
−121%
|
75−80
+121%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55
−118%
|
120−130
+118%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55−60
−120%
|
130−140
+120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
−112%
|
70−75
+112%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 85−90
−121%
|
190−200
+121%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 47
−113%
|
100−105
+113%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−121%
|
75−80
+121%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
−122%
|
60−65
+122%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
−122%
|
40−45
+122%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
−100%
|
30−33
+100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20−22
−125%
|
45−50
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−114%
|
45−50
+114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
−116%
|
210−220
+116%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
−114%
|
45−50
+114%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
−122%
|
80−85
+122%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
−112%
|
70−75
+112%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
−114%
|
75−80
+114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−125%
|
45−50
+125%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 100−110
−124%
|
240−250
+124%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
−124%
|
65−70
+124%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−108%
|
27−30
+108%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
−108%
|
27−30
+108%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 90−95
−117%
|
200−210
+117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−122%
|
40−45
+122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−122%
|
40−45
+122%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−108%
|
50−55
+108%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
−111%
|
40−45
+111%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
This is how T2000 Max-Q and Pro W6600 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6600 is 114% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6600 is 112% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6600 is 114% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.91 | 40.60 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 8 June 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 100 Watt |
T2000 Max-Q has 185.7% lower power consumption.
Pro W6600, on the other hand, has a 126.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T2000 Max-Q in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro T2000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation card while Radeon Pro W6600 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
