NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q and AMD Radeon R9 M295X 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: 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, 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 66% higher core clock speed: 1200 MHz vs 723 MHz
- 1120.6x more texture fill rate: 103.7 GTexel/s vs 92.54 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- 6.3x lower typical power consumption: 40 Watt vs 250 Watt
- Around 81% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3703 vs 2045
- Around 81% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3703 vs 2045
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 3144
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 3144
- Around 52% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 41322 vs 27109
- Around 34% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6923 vs 5150
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 vs 23 November 2014 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz vs 723 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 103.7 GTexel/s vs 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt vs 250 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3703 vs 2045 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3703 vs 2045 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 3144 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 3144 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41322 vs 27109 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6923 vs 5150 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M295X
- 2x more pipelines: 2048 vs 1024
- Around 93% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 832 vs 430
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Pipelines | 2048 vs 1024 |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 832 vs 430 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M295X
| 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 R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7682 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7682 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3703 | 2045 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3703 | 2045 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3144 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3144 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41322 | 27109 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 430 | 832 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6923 | 5150 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.777 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 820.138 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.142 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 68.754 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 386.418 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q | AMD Radeon R9 M295X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Code name | TU117 | Amethyst |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 23 November 2014 |
| Place in performance rating | 381 | 488 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 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 | 2048 |
| Pixel fill rate | 51.84 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 103.7 GTexel/s | 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Transistor count | 4700 million | 5,000 million |
| Floating-point performance | 2,961 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Width | IGP | |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | Not Listed |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | Not Listed |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
| Mantle | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | Not Listed |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Switchable graphics | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q with others
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon X1900 GT
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 5300M
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
IntelArc A370M
