NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M2000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- Around 13% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 85 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 2% higher memory clock speed: 6612 MHz vs 6500 MHz
- Around 26% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3994 vs 3182
- 3.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3684 vs 971
- Around 68% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3325 vs 1980
- 3.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3684 vs 971
- Around 68% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3325 vs 1980
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 8 April 2016 vs 21 December 2013 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 85 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz vs 6500 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3994 vs 3182 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3684 vs 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3325 vs 1980 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3684 vs 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3325 vs 1980 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
- Around 38% higher core clock speed: 1100 MHz vs 796 MHz
- Around 9% higher texture fill rate: 61.6 GTexel / s vs 56.64 GTexel / s
- Around 17% higher pipelines: 896 vs 768
- Around 9% better floating-point performance: 1,971 gflops vs 1,812 gflops
- Around 4% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 586 vs 566
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1100 MHz vs 796 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 61.6 GTexel / s vs 56.64 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 896 vs 768 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,971 gflops vs 1,812 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 586 vs 566 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 | AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3994 | 3182 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 566 | 586 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14036 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.048 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 639.056 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.697 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.796 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 225.868 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5523 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3684 | 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3325 | 1980 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5523 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3684 | 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3325 | 1980 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro M2000 | AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Code name | GM206 | Bonaire |
| Launch date | 8 April 2016 | 21 December 2013 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | |
| Place in performance rating | 579 | 573 |
| Price now | $409.99 | |
| Type | Workstation | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 13.23 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,812 gflops | 1,971 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 896 |
| Texture fill rate | 56.64 GTexel / s | 61.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2,940 million | 2,080 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort, DP DP DP DP | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 201 mm | 183 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz | 6500 MHz |
| Memory type | 128 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Memory bandwidth | 104.0 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Desktop Management | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro M2000 with others
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
ATIRadeon 2100 IGP
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M290X
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8530M
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
NVIDIANVS 810
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop)
NVIDIAQuadro M2000 vs
NVIDIAQuadro P620
