AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and AMD Radeon 760M compare on average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro P2000 has an average benchmark score of 6049, while the Radeon 760M scores 6019. The deltaPct between them is just 0.5% in favor of the Quadro P2000, placing both GPUs at the 35th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which GPU wins the most head-to-head benchmarks, and by how much?

A: The Quadro P2000 wins 5 of the 9 head-to-head tests, while the Radeon 760M wins 4. The largest margin belongs to the Quadro P2000 in PassMark DirectX 9 (90.8% ahead) and DirectX 10 (78.9% ahead), while the Radeon 760M's biggest win is a 22.3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: What is the architectural generation gap between these two GPUs?

A: The Quadro P2000 uses NVIDIA's Pascal architecture on a 16 nm process (GP106 chip), while the Radeon 760M uses AMD's RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 4 nm process (Phoenix chip). The Radeon 760M was released in 2024, seven years after the Quadro P2000's 2017 launch.

Q: How do the memory systems differ between the two?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 760M uses system shared memory, with its type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent."

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput (FP32)?

A: The Radeon 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS FP32, which is 75.6% higher than the Quadro P2000's 3.031 TFLOPS. However, the Quadro P2000 counters with higher pixel rate (59.20 GPixel/s vs 41.58 GPixel/s) and texture rate (94.72 GTexel/s vs 83.17 GTexel/s).

Q: What is the power consumption difference between these GPUs?

A: The Radeon 760M has a TDP of 15 W and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), while the Quadro P2000 has a 75 W TDP and is a single-slot discrete card with no power connectors. The Quadro P2000 also suggests a 250 W system PSU.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is generational and fundamental. The Quadro P2000 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC with 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The Radeon 760M uses AMD's RDNA 3.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 4 nm node, packing 25,390 million transistors into a smaller 178 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the Radeon 760M achieves 142.6 million transistors per mm² versus the Quadro P2000's 22.0 million per mm² — a 6.5x density advantage from the newer process.

The compute configurations differ sharply. The Quadro P2000 deploys 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The Radeon 760M uses fewer of each: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Yet the Radeon 760M's higher boost clock of 2599 MHz versus 1480 MHz helps it reach higher FP32 throughput. The Radeon 760M also includes 8 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro P2000 lacks entirely. FP16 performance reveals another split: the Radeon 760M achieves 5.323 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Quadro P2000 manages only 47.36 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:64 ratio — a massive 112x difference.

Memory architecture is a completely different paradigm. The Quadro P2000 uses dedicated 5 GB GDDR5 with a 160-bit bus and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 760M relies on system shared memory, making its bandwidth "System Dependent" — a fundamental design choice that ties performance to the host system's memory configuration rather than a fixed specification.

The bus interface also differs: the Quadro P2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs on the Quadro P2000 are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the Radeon 760M's outputs are motherboard dependent, reflecting its IGP nature. API support shows the Radeon 760M supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Quadro P2000's DirectX 12 (12_1), with both matching at OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced choice rather than a clear winner. The Quadro P2000 is a discrete workstation card with dedicated memory and a 75 W TDP, suited for scenarios requiring consistent memory bandwidth. The Radeon 760M is an integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP, far more efficient but dependent on system memory.

For legacy DirectX workloads, the Quadro P2000 is decisively stronger: 90.8% ahead in DirectX 9 and 78.9% ahead in DirectX 10. For modern API performance, the Radeon 760M takes the lead in Vulkan by 22.3% and in DirectX 11 by 9.6%. The DirectX 12 test favors the Quadro P2000 by 12%.

The overall average scores are nearly identical — 6049 versus 6019 — and both sit at the 35th percentile. The choice depends on workload. Users prioritizing legacy application compatibility or dedicated memory should choose the Quadro P2000. Users needing modern API performance, ray tracing capability, or minimal power draw should choose the Radeon 760M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | AMD Radeon 760M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 25,390 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 178 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.0M / mm² | 142.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1076 MHz | 800 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1480 MHz | 2599 MHz |

| Memory | 5 GB GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 160 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 140.2 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 512 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 40 | 16 |

| RT Cores | None | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.20 GPixel/s | 41.58 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 94.72 GTexel/s | 83.17 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.031 TFLOPS | 5.323 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) | 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2017-02-05 | 2024-01-30 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench results favor the Radeon 760M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon 760M scores 20255 versus the Quadro P2000's 20125, a narrow 0.6% margin. The Vulkan test is a more decisive victory: 30336 versus 23566, a 22.3% lead for the Radeon 760M. This suggests the Radeon 760M's modern architecture translates directly into superior Vulkan compute performance.

PassMark results tell a different story. In DirectX 9, the Quadro P2000 dominates with a 124 score versus 65, a 90.8% advantage. DirectX 10 shows a similar pattern: 34 versus 19, a 78.9% lead. These are massive margins that suggest the Pascal architecture retains strong legacy DirectX performance. The Quadro P2000 also wins DirectX 12 at 28 versus 25, a 12% margin. DirectX 11 is the exception, with the Radeon 760M scoring 52 versus 47, a 9.6% advantage.

PassMark 2D and 3D tests split decisively. The Radeon 760M wins the G2D test 890 versus 626, a 29.7% margin, indicating superior 2D rendering capabilities. But the Quadro P2000 wins G3D by a significant 31% (6956 versus 5310), showing stronger overall 3D rendering performance. GPU compute is nearly tied: the Quadro P2000 edges out 2933 versus 2840, a 3.3% difference.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins in: legacy DirectX applications (90.8% in DirectX 9, 78.9% in DirectX 10), DirectX 12 workloads (12% ahead), 3D rendering as measured by PassMark G3D (31% ahead), and GPU compute (3.3% ahead). Its dedicated 5 GB GDDR5 memory with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent, fixed performance regardless of system configuration. The 75 W TDP with a single-slot design and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface makes it a straightforward drop-in for workstations requiring a discrete GPU.

AMD Radeon 760M wins in: modern API performance with Vulkan (22.3% ahead) and DirectX 11 (9.6% ahead), 2D rendering (29.7% ahead in G2D), and raw FP32 compute (5.323 TFLOPS versus 3.031 TFLOPS). Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor make it extraordinarily power-efficient. The 8 ray tracing cores add hardware capabilities the Quadro P2000 lacks entirely. The 4 nm process with 25,390 million transistors delivers a 75.6% FP32 advantage, and the 1:1 FP16 ratio (5.323 TFLOPS) versus the Quadro P2000's 1:64 ratio (47.36 GFLOPS) makes it vastly more capable for FP16 workloads. System shared memory means performance scales with the host system's memory, but also means no dedicated VRAM allocation is needed.