AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 240 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 240

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 4 month(s) later
• Around 10% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 55 Watt
• Around 6% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 271 vs 256
• Around 67% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5146 vs 3076
• Around 64% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.344 vs 8.142
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 290.632 vs 262.321
• Around 70% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.262 vs 0.741
• Around 30% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.59 vs 16.571
• 3.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 60.326 vs 18.406
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2342 vs 2207
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2342 vs 2207

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

• Around 53% higher texture fill rate: 23.84 GTexel / s vs 15.6 GTexel / s
• Around 20% higher pipelines: 384 vs 320
• Around 15% better floating-point performance: 572.2 gflops vs 499.2 gflops
• Around 57% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1150 MHz
• Around 12% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1011 vs 899
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1726 vs 1688
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1726 vs 1688

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 240
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	899 1011
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	271 256
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	5146 3076
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	13.344 8.142
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	290.632 262.321
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.262 0.741
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	21.59 16.571
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	60.326 18.406
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1688 1726
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2342 2207
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3353 3351
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1688 1726
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2342 2207
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3353 3351

Compare specifications (specs)