NVIDIA Quadro M2000M vs AMD Radeon HD 6950

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and AMD Radeon HD 6950 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 M2000M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 11 month(s) later
• Around 37% higher boost clock speed: 1098 MHz vs 800 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• 9.1x lower typical power consumption: 55 Watt vs 500 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• 4x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 1250 MHz
• Around 32% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3457 vs 2615
• Around 33% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 8148 vs 6105
• 2.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 47.281 vs 16.999
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.5 vs 1.659
• Around 3% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.048 vs 49.698
• Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4920 vs 3652
• Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 2523
• Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4920 vs 3652
• Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 2523

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 6950

• Around 60% higher texture fill rate: 70.4 GTexel / s vs 43.92 GTexel / s
• 2.2x more pipelines: 1408 vs 640
• Around 60% better floating-point performance: 2,252.8 gflops vs 1,405 gflops
• Around 29% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 439 vs 339
• Around 15% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 899.056 vs 782.113
• Around 45% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 251.203 vs 172.896
• 3.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 11657 vs 3355
• 3.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 11657 vs 3355

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 6950

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3457 2615
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	339 439
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	8148 6105
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	47.281 16.999
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	782.113 899.056
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.5 1.659
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	51.048 49.698
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	172.896 251.203
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4920 3652
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 2523
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3355 11657
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4920 3652
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 2523
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3355 11657

Compare specifications (specs)