Quadro 2000M vs Radeon R9 290

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with Quadro 2000M, including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
21.00
+940%

R9 290 outperforms 2000M by a whopping 940% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking262888
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.020.28
Power efficiency5.242.52
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameHawaiiGF106
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)13 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $46.56

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 290 has 2764% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.

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 cores2560192
Core clock speed947 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate151.517.60
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS0.4224 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs16032

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 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s28.8 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
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-2.1

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.

R9 290 21.00
+940%
Quadro 2000M 2.02

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.

R9 290 8093
+940%
Quadro 2000M 778

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 HD350−400
+846%
37
−846%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.141.26

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R9 290 and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:

  • R9 290 is 846% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.00 2.02
Recency 5 November 2013 13 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 55 Watt

R9 290 has a 939.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 2000M, on the other hand, has 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while Quadro 2000M 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 R9 290
Radeon R9 290
NVIDIA Quadro 2000M
Quadro 2000M

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.


4.2 558 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 94 votes

Rate Quadro 2000M 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.