Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870

Place in the ranking	376	269
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	14.70	23.83
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Vega Kaby Lake-G	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	7 January 2018 (7 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 cores	1280	1024
Core clock speed	931 MHz	1575 MHz
Boost clock speed	1011 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	114.2
Floating-point processing power	no data	3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	32
TMUs	no data	64

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 size	medium sized	medium sized
Interface	no data	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 type	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	no data	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	128.0 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 Connectors

no data

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	no data	6.5
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.2
Vulkan	-	1.2.131
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 Vega M GL / 870 13.88

T2000 Mobile 20.77
+49.6%

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 Vega M GL / 870 9862

T2000 Mobile 13524
+37.1%

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	44 −47.7%	65−70 +47.7%
1440p	28 −42.9%	40−45 +42.9%
4K	15 −40%	21−24 +40%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −48%	35−40 +48%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −51.9%	40−45 +51.9%
Elden Ring	40−45 −57.1%	65−70 +57.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −46.7%	65−70 +46.7%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −48%	35−40 +48%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −51.9%	40−45 +51.9%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −57.1%	85−90 +57.1%
Metro Exodus	44 −27.3%	55−60 +27.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	48 +2.1%	45−50 −2.1%
Valorant	47 −78.7%	80−85 +78.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −46.7%	65−70 +46.7%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −48%	35−40 +48%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −51.9%	40−45 +51.9%
Dota 2	27 −170%	70−75 +170%
Elden Ring	40−45 −57.1%	65−70 +57.1%
Far Cry 5	37 −83.8%	65−70 +83.8%
Fortnite	75−80 −39.7%	100−110 +39.7%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −57.1%	85−90 +57.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	41 −78%	70−75 +78%
Metro Exodus	30 −86.7%	55−60 +86.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	129 −7%	130−140 +7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16 −194%	45−50 +194%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 −57.1%	65−70 +57.1%
Valorant	30 −180%	80−85 +180%
World of Tanks	180−190 −28.3%	230−240 +28.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −46.7%	65−70 +46.7%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −48%	35−40 +48%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −51.9%	40−45 +51.9%
Dota 2	50−55 −46%	70−75 +46%
Far Cry 5	51 −33.3%	65−70 +33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −57.1%	85−90 +57.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −36.6%	130−140 +36.6%
Valorant	55−60 −52.7%	80−85 +52.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	20−22 −65%	30−35 +65%
Elden Ring	21−24 −66.7%	35−40 +66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 −70%	30−35 +70%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	62 −177%	170−180 +177%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −58.3%	18−20 +58.3%
World of Tanks	95−100 −42.9%	140−150 +42.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −50%	40−45 +50%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −41.7%	16−18 +41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −70%	16−18 +70%
Far Cry 5	32 −78.1%	55−60 +78.1%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −63.6%	50−55 +63.6%
Metro Exodus	27 −74.1%	45−50 +74.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −70.6%	27−30 +70.6%
Valorant	30−35 −58.8%	50−55 +58.8%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −88.9%	16−18 +88.9%
Dota 2	29 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Elden Ring	9−10 −66.7%	14−16 +66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	29 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −66.7%	14−16 +66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30 −107%	60−65 +107%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 −44.4%	12−14 +44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	29 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −61.5%	21−24 +61.5%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −88.9%	16−18 +88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Dota 2	24−27 −40%	35−40 +40%
Far Cry 5	15 −80%	27−30 +80%
Fortnite	16−18 −56.3%	24−27 +56.3%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −63.2%	30−35 +63.2%
Valorant	14−16 −66.7%	24−27 +66.7%

This is how RX Vega M GL / 870 and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

T2000 Mobile is 48% faster in 1080p
T2000 Mobile is 43% faster in 1440p
T2000 Mobile is 40% faster in 4K

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega M GL / 870 is 2% faster.
in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 194% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega M GL / 870 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
T2000 Mobile is ahead in 62 tests (98%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	13.88	20.77
Recency	7 January 2018	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	60 Watt

T2000 Mobile has a 49.6% 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 Vega M GL / 870 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 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.