Quadro 2000M vs Radeon VII
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon VII with Quadro 2000M, including specs and performance data.
VII outperforms 2000M by a whopping 2010% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 97 | 900 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 23.22 | 0.28 |
| Power efficiency | 9.92 | 2.52 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | GF106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 February 2019 (6 years ago) | 13 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $46.56 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Radeon VII has 8193% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.
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 | 3840 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1750 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 420.0 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 13.44 TFLOPS | 0.4224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 240 | 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 280 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | no 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 type | HBM2 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 1024 GB/s | 28.8 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 | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 121
+218%
| 38
−218%
|
| 1440p | 77
+2467%
| 3−4
−2467%
|
| 4K | 59
+2850%
| 2−3
−2850%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.78
−371%
| 1.23
+371%
|
| 1440p | 9.08
+71%
| 15.52
−71%
|
| 4K | 11.85
+96.5%
| 23.28
−96.5%
|
- Quadro 2000M has 371% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Radeon VII has 71% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Radeon VII has 96% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 110−120
+2280%
|
5−6
−2280%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+11050%
|
2−3
−11050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+2200%
|
4−5
−2200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 110−120
+2280%
|
5−6
−2280%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 136
+2620%
|
5−6
−2620%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+11050%
|
2−3
−11050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+2200%
|
4−5
−2200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+4850%
|
2−3
−4850%
|
| Fortnite | 195
+2338%
|
8−9
−2338%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 163
+1530%
|
10−11
−1530%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+6050%
|
2−3
−6050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 157
+1327%
|
10−12
−1327%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+487%
|
35−40
−487%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 110−120
+2280%
|
5−6
−2280%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 137
+2640%
|
5−6
−2640%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+11050%
|
2−3
−11050%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+613%
|
35−40
−613%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+2200%
|
4−5
−2200%
|
| Dota 2 | 160
+662%
|
21−24
−662%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95
+4650%
|
2−3
−4650%
|
| Fortnite | 154
+1825%
|
8−9
−1825%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 157
+1470%
|
10−11
−1470%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+6050%
|
2−3
−6050%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 111
+2675%
|
4−5
−2675%
|
| Metro Exodus | 88
+2833%
|
3−4
−2833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 158
+1336%
|
10−12
−1336%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 139
+1886%
|
7−8
−1886%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+487%
|
35−40
−487%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 127
+2440%
|
5−6
−2440%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+2200%
|
4−5
−2200%
|
| Dota 2 | 147
+600%
|
21−24
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+4450%
|
2−3
−4450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130
+1200%
|
10−11
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 143
+1200%
|
10−12
−1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75
+971%
|
7−8
−971%
|
| Valorant | 197
+405%
|
35−40
−405%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 114
+1325%
|
8−9
−1325%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+10200%
|
1−2
−10200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+1992%
|
12−14
−1992%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 43 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 56
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+872%
|
18−20
−872%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+1757%
|
14−16
−1757%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−105
+2400%
|
4−5
−2400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+3067%
|
3−4
−3067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+2750%
|
4−5
−2750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+2400%
|
3−4
−2400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
+3400%
|
3−4
−3400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+313%
|
14−16
−313%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54
+2600%
|
2−3
−2600%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+2300%
|
10−11
−2300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 73
+2333%
|
3−4
−2333%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 78
+1850%
|
4−5
−1850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+2467%
|
3−4
−2467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 58
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 44
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
This is how Radeon VII and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:
- Radeon VII is 218% faster in 1080p
- Radeon VII is 2467% faster in 1440p
- Radeon VII is 2850% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon VII is 11050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Radeon VII surpassed Quadro 2000M in all 53 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.72 | 1.74 |
| Recency | 7 February 2019 | 13 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 55 Watt |
Radeon VII has a 2010.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 2000M, on the other hand, has 436.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon VII is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon VII is a desktop card while Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
