Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL and Quadro T2000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro WX Vega M GL
2018
4 GB HBM2, 65 Watt
12.38

T2000 Mobile outperforms Pro WX Vega M GL by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking402266
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.0523.68
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code namePolaris 22TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date24 April 2018 (6 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 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 cores12801024
Core clock speed931 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1011 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate80.88114.2
Floating-point processing power2.588 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs8064

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfaceIGPPCIe 3.0 x16

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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width1024 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
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. 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.

Pro WX Vega M GL 12.38
T2000 Mobile 20.73
+67.4%

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.

Pro WX Vega M GL 4768
T2000 Mobile 7985
+67.5%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Pro WX Vega M GL 10020
T2000 Mobile 13524
+35%

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 HD51
−66.7%
85−90
+66.7%
4K15
−60%
24−27
+60%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−73.7%
30−35
+73.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 33
−39.4%
45−50
+39.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
−84.2%
35−40
+84.2%
Battlefield 5 35−40
−78.9%
65−70
+78.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
−75%
40−45
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−73.7%
30−35
+73.7%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−71.4%
45−50
+71.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
−66.7%
55−60
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
−58.8%
120−130
+58.8%
Hitman 3 21−24
−78.3%
40−45
+78.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
−54.7%
95−100
+54.7%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−77.5%
70−75
+77.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−66.7%
55−60
+66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65
−6.2%
65−70
+6.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−34.8%
90−95
+34.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
−64.3%
45−50
+64.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
−84.2%
35−40
+84.2%
Battlefield 5 35−40
−78.9%
65−70
+78.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
−75%
40−45
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−73.7%
30−35
+73.7%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−71.4%
45−50
+71.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
−66.7%
55−60
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
−58.8%
120−130
+58.8%
Hitman 3 21−24
−78.3%
40−45
+78.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
−54.7%
95−100
+54.7%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−77.5%
70−75
+77.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−66.7%
55−60
+66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−76.9%
65−70
+76.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
−53.3%
45−50
+53.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−34.8%
90−95
+34.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 17
−171%
45−50
+171%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
−84.2%
35−40
+84.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
−75%
40−45
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−73.7%
30−35
+73.7%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−71.4%
45−50
+71.4%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
−58.8%
120−130
+58.8%
Hitman 3 21−24
−78.3%
40−45
+78.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
−54.7%
95−100
+54.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−76.9%
65−70
+76.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
−91.7%
45−50
+91.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−34.8%
90−95
+34.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−66.7%
55−60
+66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
−73.9%
40−45
+73.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
−77.8%
30−35
+77.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−75%
21−24
+75%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−138%
18−20
+138%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−76.9%
21−24
+76.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−100%
110−120
+100%
Hitman 3 14−16
−60%
24−27
+60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−68%
40−45
+68%
Metro Exodus 18−20
−105%
35−40
+105%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
−126%
40−45
+126%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−100%
24−27
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
−61.3%
120−130
+61.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
−70%
30−35
+70%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
−81.8%
20−22
+81.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−77.8%
16−18
+77.8%
Hitman 3 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
−91.1%
100−110
+91.1%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−100%
21−24
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
−40%
21−24
+40%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10
−20%
12−14
+20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−83.3%
10−12
+83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−83.3%
10−12
+83.3%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−75%
27−30
+75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−140%
24−27
+140%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%

This is how Pro WX Vega M GL and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T2000 Mobile is 67% faster in 1080p
  • T2000 Mobile is 60% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 171% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, T2000 Mobile surpassed Pro WX Vega M GL in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.38 20.73
Recency 24 April 2018 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 60 Watt

T2000 Mobile has a 67.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 8.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL in performance tests.


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.


AMD Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL
Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
Quadro T2000 Mobile

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.


5 1 vote

Rate Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 395 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Mobile 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.