Quadro 2000 vs Radeon RX 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 with Quadro 2000, including specs and performance data.
RX 560 outperforms 2000 by a whopping 286% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 479 | 848 |
| Place by popularity | 78 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.48 | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 8.68 | 2.72 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | GF106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 24 December 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 560 has 825% better value for money than Quadro 2000.
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 cores | 1024 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 62 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 81.60 | 20.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.611 TFLOPS | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 32 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 170 mm | 178 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 41.6 GB/s |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 HD | 35
+289%
| 9−10
−289%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.83
+2253%
| 66.56
−2253%
|
- RX 560 has 2253% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.50 | 2.46 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 24 December 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 62 Watt |
RX 560 has a 286.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 2000, on the other hand, has 21% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 560 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 560 is a desktop card while Quadro 2000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
