Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon R7 260X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 260X with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R7 260X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 115 Watt
7.75

T2000 Mobile outperforms R7 260X by a whopping 150% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking512273
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.36no data
Power efficiency4.9723.81
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameBonaireTU117
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$139 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores8961024
Core clock speedno data1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors2,080 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate61.60114.2
Floating-point processing power1.971 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs5664

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length170 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth104 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
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.

R7 260X 7.75
T2000 Mobile 19.38
+150%

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.

R7 260X 3194
T2000 Mobile 7985
+150%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
World of Tanks 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
World of Tanks 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.75 19.38
Recency 8 October 2013 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 60 Watt

T2000 Mobile has a 150.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 91.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 260X is a desktop card while Quadro T2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.


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 R7 260X
Radeon R7 260X
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
Quadro T2000 Mobile

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 395 votes

Rate Radeon R7 260X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 398 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.