NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs ATI Radeon HD 4870
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and ATI Radeon HD 4870 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 7 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- Around 6% higher core clock speed: 796 MHz vs 750 MHz
- Around 89% higher texture fill rate: 56.64 GTexel / s vs 30 GTexel / s
- Around 51% better floating-point performance: 1,812 gflops vs 1,200.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 2x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 150 Watt
- 8x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 512 MB
- Around 84% higher memory clock speed: 6612 MHz vs 3600 MHz
- 2.9x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3997 vs 1367
- 12.4x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 569 vs 46
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 8 April 2016 vs 25 June 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz vs 750 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 56.64 GTexel / s vs 30 GTexel / s |
| Floating-point performance | 1,812 gflops vs 1,200.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 150 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz vs 3600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3997 vs 1367 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 569 vs 46 |
Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon HD 4870
- Around 4% higher pipelines: 800 vs 768
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 vs 3325
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 vs 3325
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Pipelines | 800 vs 768 |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 vs 3325 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 vs 3325 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000
GPU 2: ATI Radeon HD 4870
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 | ATI Radeon HD 4870 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3997 | 1367 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 569 | 46 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14020 | |
| 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 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3325 | 3346 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5523 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3684 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3325 | 3346 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro M2000 | ATI Radeon HD 4870 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | TeraScale |
| Code name | GM206 | RV770 |
| Launch date | 8 April 2016 | 25 June 2008 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | $299 |
| Place in performance rating | 580 | 1325 |
| 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 | 750 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,812 gflops | 1,200.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 800 |
| Texture fill rate | 56.64 GTexel / s | 30 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2,940 million | 956 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort, DP DP DP DP | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 201 mm | 250 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz | 3600 MHz |
| Memory type | 128 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 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
