NVIDIA Quadro M2000M vs AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and AMD Radeon HD 8950 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 M2000M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 10 month(s) later
• Around 21% higher core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 850 MHz
• Around 19% higher boost clock speed: 1098 MHz vs 925 MHz
• 3.6x lower typical power consumption: 55 Watt vs 200 Watt
• Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 3 GB
• Around 28% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3466 vs 2718
• Around 17% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 47.281 vs 40.311
• Around 5% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.5 vs 3.328
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4920 vs 4396
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4920 vs 4396

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM

• 2.4x more texture fill rate: 103.6 GTexel / s vs 43.92 GTexel / s
• 2.8x more pipelines: 1792 vs 640
• 2.4x better floating-point performance: 3,315 gflops vs 1,405 gflops
• Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 367 vs 340
• Around 68% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 13686 vs 8148
• Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.334 vs 782.113
• Around 26% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.205 vs 51.048
• Around 6% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 181.508 vs 171.268

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3466 2718
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	340 367
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	8148 13686
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	47.281 40.311
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	782.113 795.334
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.5 3.328
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	51.048 64.205
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	171.268 181.508
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4920 4396
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 3705
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3355 3348
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4920 4396
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 3705
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3355 3348

Compare specifications (specs)