Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon R7 350

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 350 with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R7 350
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
5.59

T2000 Mobile outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 271% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking603266
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.9723.67
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameCape VerdeTU117
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date6 July 2016 (8 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 cores5121024
Core clock speed800 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate25.60114.2
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3264

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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

Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Hitman 3 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Hitman 3 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Hitman 3 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.59 20.72
Recency 6 July 2016 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 60 Watt

R7 350 has 9.1% lower power consumption.

T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 270.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 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 350
Radeon R7 350
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.


3.8 485 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 394 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.