Quadro M2000 vs Radeon HD 7950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7950 with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.
HD 7950 outperforms M2000 by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 400 | 433 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.40 | 3.56 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GM206 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 31 January 2012 (12 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $437.75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro M2000 has 48% better value for money than HD 7950.
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 | 1792 | 768 |
| Compute units | 28 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 89.60 | 55.82 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.867 TFLOPS | 1.786 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 48 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 201 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | Up to 106 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 5.2 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.35 | 10.36 |
| Recency | 31 January 2012 | 8 April 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 75 Watt |
HD 7950 has a 19.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro M2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 166.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7950 is a desktop card while Quadro M2000 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.
