NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 month(s) later
- 4x more core clock speed: 1200 MHz vs 300 MHz
- Around 36% higher boost clock speed: 1620 MHz vs 1190 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 14 nm
- Around 88% lower typical power consumption: 40 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3703 vs 3586
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3703 vs 3586
- Around 84% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 41349 vs 22421
- Around 44% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6923 vs 4809
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 vs 14 November 2018 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz vs 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz vs 1190 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 14 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3703 vs 3586 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3703 vs 3586 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41349 vs 22421 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6923 vs 4809 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16
- Around 20% higher memory clock speed: 2400 MHz vs 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective)
- Around 15% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8870 vs 7682
- Around 15% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8870 vs 7682
- Around 36% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 585 vs 430
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Memory clock speed | 2400 MHz vs 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8870 vs 7682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8870 vs 7682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 vs 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 vs 3356 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 585 vs 430 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 |
|---|---|---|
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7682 | 8870 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7682 | 8870 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3703 | 3586 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3703 | 3586 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3359 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41349 | 22421 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 430 | 585 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6923 | 4809 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 5.0 |
| Code name | TU117 | Vega 12 |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 14 November 2018 |
| Place in performance rating | 381 | 360 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | 1190 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 103.7 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 6.636 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.318 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1024 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 51.84 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 103.7 GTexel/s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 4700 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
| Width | IGP | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) | 2400 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q with others
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon HD 2900 PRO
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon R9 280X
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAQuadro P3000
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon RX 560X
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon RX 5300M
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
IntelArc A370M
