Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon RX 560X Mobile

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 560X Mobile with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

RX 560X Mobile
2018
4 GB GDDR5, 65 Watt
10.87

T2000 Mobile outperforms RX 560X Mobile by an impressive 91% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking426266
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.4623.67
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code namePolaris 21TU117
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date11 April 2018 (6 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 cores10241024
Core clock speed1275 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1202 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate81.60114.2
Floating-point processing power2.611 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs6464

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 amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1450 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth92.8 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

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 560X Mobile 10.87
T2000 Mobile 20.72
+90.6%

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 560X Mobile 8212
T2000 Mobile 13524
+64.7%

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 HD34
−76.5%
60−65
+76.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 23
−43.5%
30−35
+43.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
−84%
45−50
+84%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30
−16.7%
35−40
+16.7%
Battlefield 5 49
−38.8%
65−70
+38.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−90.9%
40−45
+90.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
−94.1%
30−35
+94.1%
Far Cry 5 35
−37.1%
45−50
+37.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 42
−31%
55−60
+31%
Forza Horizon 4 109
−16.5%
120−130
+16.5%
Hitman 3 24
−70.8%
40−45
+70.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
−65%
95−100
+65%
Metro Exodus 45
−57.8%
70−75
+57.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 47
−17%
55−60
+17%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 56
−23.2%
65−70
+23.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−38.8%
90−95
+38.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 49
+6.5%
45−50
−6.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21
−66.7%
35−40
+66.7%
Battlefield 5 36
−88.9%
65−70
+88.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−90.9%
40−45
+90.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
−120%
30−35
+120%
Far Cry 5 29
−65.5%
45−50
+65.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 28
−96.4%
55−60
+96.4%
Forza Horizon 4 105
−21%
120−130
+21%
Hitman 3 23
−78.3%
40−45
+78.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
−65%
95−100
+65%
Metro Exodus 36
−97.2%
70−75
+97.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−77.4%
55−60
+77.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 42
−64.3%
65−70
+64.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−58.6%
45−50
+58.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−38.8%
90−95
+38.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16
−188%
45−50
+188%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
−106%
35−40
+106%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−90.9%
40−45
+90.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
−154%
30−35
+154%
Far Cry 5 21
−129%
45−50
+129%
Forza Horizon 4 38
−234%
120−130
+234%
Hitman 3 21
−95.2%
40−45
+95.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
−65%
95−100
+65%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 37
−86.5%
65−70
+86.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
−109%
45−50
+109%
Watch Dogs: Legion 11
−745%
90−95
+745%

Full HD
Epic Preset

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

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
−81.8%
40−45
+81.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
−88.2%
30−35
+88.2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−90.9%
21−24
+90.9%
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
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−123%
110−120
+123%
Hitman 3 14−16
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−82.6%
40−45
+82.6%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−129%
35−40
+129%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−169%
40−45
+169%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
−72.9%
120−130
+72.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

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

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
−100%
20−22
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Hitman 3 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−114%
100−110
+114%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−144%
21−24
+144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%

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 14−16
−100%
27−30
+100%
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 560X Mobile and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T2000 Mobile is 76% faster in 1080p

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 560X Mobile is 7% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 745% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 560X Mobile is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • T2000 Mobile is ahead in 71 test (99%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.87 20.72
Recency 11 April 2018 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 60 Watt

T2000 Mobile has a 90.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 8.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560X Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 560X 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 560X Mobile
Radeon RX 560X Mobile
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.


4 415 votes

Rate Radeon RX 560X Mobile 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.