Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon RX 460

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 460 with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

RX 460
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
10.63

T2000 Mobile outperforms RX 460 by an impressive 95% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking432263
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.12no data
Power efficiency9.8023.85
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameBaffinTU117
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date8 August 2016 (8 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 speed1090 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate67.20114.2
Floating-point processing power2.15 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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Length170 mmno data
Width2-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 speed1750 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 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+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-

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.

RX 460 10.63
T2000 Mobile 20.70
+94.7%

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.

RX 460 4102
T2000 Mobile 7985
+94.7%

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.

RX 460 8597
T2000 Mobile 13524
+57.3%

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 HD40
−87.5%
75−80
+87.5%
1440p28
−78.6%
50−55
+78.6%
4K19
−84.2%
35−40
+84.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.15no data
1440p3.07no data
4K4.53no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−106%
30−35
+106%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 34
−35.3%
45−50
+35.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
Battlefield 5 30−35
−106%
65−70
+106%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−100%
40−45
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−106%
30−35
+106%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−92%
45−50
+92%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
−83.3%
55−60
+83.3%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−78.9%
120−130
+78.9%
Hitman 3 20−22
−105%
40−45
+105%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
−70.7%
95−100
+70.7%
Metro Exodus 44
−61.4%
70−75
+61.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
−83.3%
55−60
+83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−97.1%
65−70
+97.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−43.1%
90−95
+43.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 54
+17.4%
45−50
−17.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
Battlefield 5 22
−209%
65−70
+209%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−100%
40−45
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−106%
30−35
+106%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−92%
45−50
+92%
Far Cry New Dawn 31
−77.4%
55−60
+77.4%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−78.9%
120−130
+78.9%
Hitman 3 20−22
−105%
40−45
+105%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
−70.7%
95−100
+70.7%
Metro Exodus 35
−103%
70−75
+103%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
−83.3%
55−60
+83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−97.1%
65−70
+97.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−64.3%
45−50
+64.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−43.1%
90−95
+43.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 17
−171%
45−50
+171%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−100%
40−45
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−106%
30−35
+106%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−92%
45−50
+92%
Forza Horizon 4 41
−210%
120−130
+210%
Hitman 3 20−22
−105%
40−45
+105%
Horizon Zero Dawn 36
−175%
95−100
+175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−97.1%
65−70
+97.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
−100%
45−50
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−43.1%
90−95
+43.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
−83.3%
55−60
+83.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
−90.5%
40−45
+90.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
−100%
30−35
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
−171%
18−20
+171%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
−109%
21−24
+109%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−100%
24−27
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
−137%
110−120
+137%
Hitman 3 14−16
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 25
−68%
40−45
+68%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−144%
35−40
+144%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−187%
40−45
+187%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−140%
24−27
+140%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−80.6%
120−130
+80.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
−88.9%
30−35
+88.9%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 13
−53.8%
20−22
+53.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Hitman 3 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−128%
100−110
+128%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−144%
21−24
+144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
−75%
21−24
+75%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−83.3%
10−12
+83.3%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−115%
27−30
+115%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%

This is how RX 460 and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T2000 Mobile is 88% faster in 1080p
  • T2000 Mobile is 79% faster in 1440p
  • T2000 Mobile is 84% faster in 4K

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 460 is 17% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 460 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • T2000 Mobile is ahead in 71 test (99%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.63 20.70
Recency 8 August 2016 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 60 Watt

T2000 Mobile has a 94.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 460 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 460 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 RX 460
Radeon RX 460
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 1021 vote

Rate Radeon RX 460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 381 vote

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.