NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs AMD Radeon R9 285

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and AMD Radeon R9 285 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 NVIDIA Quadro M2000

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 7 month(s) later
• 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 190 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 20% higher memory clock speed: 6612 MHz vs 5500 MHz
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3684 vs 3043
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3325 vs 2782
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3684 vs 3043
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3325 vs 2782

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 285

• Around 15% higher core clock speed: 918 MHz vs 796 MHz
• Around 81% higher texture fill rate: 102.8 GTexel / s vs 56.64 GTexel / s
• 2.3x more pipelines: 1792 vs 768
• Around 82% better floating-point performance: 3,290 gflops vs 1,812 gflops
• Around 67% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6680 vs 3997
• Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 597 vs 569
• Around 32% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 72.799 vs 55.048
• 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.632 vs 639.056
• Around 72% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.369 vs 3.697
• 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 91.954 vs 35.796
• Around 73% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 391.399 vs 225.868
• Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6474 vs 5523
• Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6474 vs 5523

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 285

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3997 6680
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	569 597
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	55.048 72.799
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	639.056 1474.632
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.697 6.369
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	35.796 91.954
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	225.868 391.399
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5523 6474
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3684 3043
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3325 2782
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5523 6474
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3684 3043
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3325 2782

Compare specifications (specs)