Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon RX 470 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 470 Mobile with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

RX 470 Mobile
2016
8 GB GDDR5, 85 Watt
18.23

T2000 Mobile outperforms RX 470 Mobile by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking306269
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.16no data
Power efficiency14.7623.83
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameEllesmereTU117
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date4 August 2016 (8 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549.99 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 cores20481024
Core clock speed926 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1074 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors5,700 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)85 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate137.5114.2
Floating-point processing power4.399 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs12864

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth224.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

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

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 30−35
−15.6%
35−40
+15.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−13.9%
40−45
+13.9%
Elden Ring 55−60
−15.8%
65−70
+15.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
−13.8%
65−70
+13.8%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
−15.6%
35−40
+15.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−13.9%
40−45
+13.9%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
−15.8%
85−90
+15.8%
Metro Exodus 45−50
−14.3%
55−60
+14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−9.3%
45−50
+9.3%
Valorant 70−75
−13.5%
80−85
+13.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
−13.8%
65−70
+13.8%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
−15.6%
35−40
+15.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−13.9%
40−45
+13.9%
Dota 2 65−70
−12.3%
70−75
+12.3%
Elden Ring 55−60
−15.8%
65−70
+15.8%
Far Cry 5 60−65
−7.9%
65−70
+7.9%
Fortnite 95−100
−11.2%
100−110
+11.2%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
−15.8%
85−90
+15.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
−12.3%
70−75
+12.3%
Metro Exodus 45−50
−14.3%
55−60
+14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
−10.4%
130−140
+10.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−9.3%
45−50
+9.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
−15.8%
65−70
+15.8%
Valorant 70−75
−13.5%
80−85
+13.5%
World of Tanks 220−230
−7.3%
230−240
+7.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
−13.8%
65−70
+13.8%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
−15.6%
35−40
+15.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−13.9%
40−45
+13.9%
Dota 2 65−70
−12.3%
70−75
+12.3%
Far Cry 5 60−65
−7.9%
65−70
+7.9%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
−15.8%
85−90
+15.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
−10.4%
130−140
+10.4%
Valorant 70−75
−13.5%
80−85
+13.5%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 27−30
−17.9%
30−35
+17.9%
Elden Ring 30−33
−16.7%
35−40
+16.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
−21.4%
30−35
+21.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
−4.2%
170−180
+4.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
−18.8%
18−20
+18.8%
World of Tanks 120−130
−12%
140−150
+12%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
−13.5%
40−45
+13.5%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−21.4%
16−18
+21.4%
Far Cry 5 45−50
−21.3%
55−60
+21.3%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
−17.4%
50−55
+17.4%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−14.6%
45−50
+14.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−20.8%
27−30
+20.8%
Valorant 45−50
−17.4%
50−55
+17.4%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−21.4%
16−18
+21.4%
Dota 2 30−35
−12.9%
35−40
+12.9%
Elden Ring 12−14
−15.4%
14−16
+15.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
−12.9%
35−40
+12.9%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−15.4%
14−16
+15.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
−14.8%
60−65
+14.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
−12.9%
35−40
+12.9%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−21.4%
16−18
+21.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 30−35
−12.9%
35−40
+12.9%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−17.4%
27−30
+17.4%
Fortnite 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−14.8%
30−35
+14.8%
Valorant 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%

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

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 21% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, T2000 Mobile surpassed RX 470 Mobile in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.23 20.77
Recency 4 August 2016 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 85 Watt 60 Watt

RX 470 Mobile has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 13.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 41.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 470 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 470 Mobile is a notebook graphics 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 470 Mobile
Radeon RX 470 Mobile
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.


4.1 32 votes

Rate Radeon RX 470 Mobile 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.