AMD Radeon 890M vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and the AMD Radeon 890M represent two very different eras of mobile graphics. The data shows a clear generational shift in performance, but the comparison also highlights distinct architectural philosophies and target use cases, making the choice between them highly dependent on the specific workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The available benchmark data presents a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon 890M. In the two shared tests, the AMD part outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M by an enormous margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon 890M scored 37,254, while the Quadro M2000M scored 10,057. This translates to a performance gap of -73% from the perspective of the NVIDIA part, meaning the AMD iGPU is roughly 3.7 times faster in this compute-oriented workload.

The Vulkan results are even more lopsided. The Radeon 890M achieved a score of 40,808, dwarfing the Quadro M2000M's 9,606. The delta here is -76.5%, indicating the AMD solution is over four times faster in this API. These are not marginal wins; they are substantial leaps that suggest the Radeon 890M operates in a different performance class entirely. The Quadro M2000M wins no head-to-head benchmarks in this data set, with winsA at 0 and winsB at 2.

While the Radeon 890M's absolute scores are impressive, its position in the broader market is more nuanced. Its average benchmark score of 9,210 places it at the 45th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (avg score 9,221, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (avg score 9,273, delta -0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (avg score 9,294, delta -0.9%). This shows it is clustered tightly with these older discrete cards, just slightly below their average scores.

The Quadro M2000M, despite its massive loss to the Radeon 890M, actually holds a slightly higher percentile ranking at 47. Its average benchmark score is 9,832, which is higher than the Radeon 890M's 9,210. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (avg score 9,846, delta -0.1%), the AMD FirePro W5000 (avg score 9,803, delta 0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (avg score 9,780, delta 0.5%). This is a fascinating contradiction: the data shows the Radeon 890M is vastly superior in the two specific tests they share, yet the Quadro M2000M has a higher aggregate benchmark score and overall percentile. This suggests the Quadro's average is buoyed by strong performance in other legacy or professional tests not present in this comparison, while the Radeon's average is pulled down by weaker results in some DirectX tests, such as its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 97 and DirectX 10 score of 33.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The AMD Radeon 890M is significantly faster, scoring 40,808 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M's 9,606, a difference of -76.5% from the NVIDIA part's perspective.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M beat the AMD Radeon 890M in any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks provided (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the AMD Radeon 890M wins both. The data shows winsA (Quadro) is 0.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 890M compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960?

A: The Radeon 890M's average benchmark score is 9,210, which is 0.7% lower than the GeForce GTX 960's average score of 9,273.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two chips?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon 890M is built on a much more advanced 4 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the AMD Radeon 890M has a significantly lower TDP of 15 W.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, while the AMD Radeon 890M has an average score of 9,210.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is based on the GM107 chip, which utilizes the Maxwell architecture. This architecture, part of the Quadro Maxwell-M generation, is a mature design from a previous decade. In contrast, the AMD Radeon 890M is built on the Strix Point chip, using the RDNA 3.5 architecture, representing the Navi III IGP generation. This is a modern, highly efficient design.

The manufacturing process highlights the technological gap. The Quadro M2000M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 1,870 million transistors onto a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The Radeon 890M, however, is fabricated on a state-of-the-art 4 nm process at TSMC. This allows it to pack a staggering 34,000 million transistors onto a 233 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 145.9M / mm²—over ten times denser than the Maxwell chip.

Memory architecture also differs completely. The Quadro M2000M features a dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 890M, as an integrated graphics processor (IGP), uses a "System Shared" memory configuration. Its bus width and bandwidth are listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively, meaning its performance is tied to the speed of the host system's RAM. The feature sets are also distinct. The Radeon 890M includes 16 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Quadro M2000M has no ray tracing cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The AMD Radeon 890M is equipped with significantly more: 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This increase in core count is a major factor in its superior fill rate and compute performance.

Clock speeds present an interesting contrast. The Quadro M2000M has a base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz, with memory clocked at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Radeon 890M has a much lower base clock of 400 MHz but a dramatically higher boost clock of 2900 MHz. Its memory clock is listed as "System Shared."

These differences manifest in the calculated performance metrics. The Quadro M2000M offers a pixel rate of 18.19 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 45.48 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 1,455.4 GFLOPS. The Radeon 890M is vastly ahead, delivering a pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 5.939 TFLOPS, and it also provides FP16 performance at 5.939 TFLOPS (1:1), a feature the Quadro M2000M lacks. Power consumption is also a major differentiator: the Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the Radeon 890M is rated at just 15 W. The Quadro uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, whereas the Radeon 890M is an IGP with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. Neither uses external power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the AMD Radeon 890M is the clear winner in raw compute and modern API performance. Its wins in the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks are decisive, showing a massive advantage in workloads that leverage these APIs, such as GPU compute tasks and modern game rendering. Its high boost clock, larger core count, and support for ray tracing make it the superior choice for contemporary applications that can utilize these features. Its much lower TDP of 15 W also makes it significantly more power-efficient for sustained performance in thin-and-light laptops.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, despite losing the head-to-head, shows its strengths in the aggregate data. Its higher average benchmark score of 9,832 and 47th percentile ranking suggest it performs better across a wider range of legacy and professional benchmarks. Its nearest rival list includes professional cards like the Quadro 6000 and FirePro W5000, indicating its strength in OpenGL-based professional applications. For users running older software or specific workstation tasks that are optimized for the Maxwell architecture, the Quadro M2000M may still provide a more consistent and compatible experience. It also has the advantage of dedicated GDDR5 memory, which, while lower in bandwidth, does not depend on system memory performance.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split. For users prioritizing modern compute performance, gaming with DirectX 12 Ultimate, or energy efficiency, the AMD Radeon 890M is the obvious choice. Its staggering leads in OpenCL and Vulkan, combined with its 15 W TDP, make it a future-proof and highly capable solution for current software. Its support for ray tracing is a feature the Quadro M2000M simply cannot match.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is not without merit. Its higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking, despite the huge individual test losses, indicate it is a more balanced performer across a broader spectrum of tests. Users with legacy professional software that is certified for NVIDIA's Quadro line may find the M2000M to be the more reliable option. Ultimately, the choice depends on the workload. The Radeon 890M wins on raw, modern power and efficiency, while the Quadro M2000M holds its ground in overall benchmark consistency and legacy application compatibility.