GPU Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and AMD Radeon HD 8750M represent two distinct eras of mobile and workstation graphics, separated by four years of architectural evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the Quadro P2000 delivering a decisive victory, yet the Radeon HD 8750M holds its own in the percentile rankings, suggesting a more nuanced comparison than raw performance alone.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is emphatic. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 points, while the AMD Radeon HD 8750M manages 5,970 points. This translates to a delta of 237.1%, meaning the Quadro P2000 is over three times faster in this compute workload. The margin is so large that it dwarfs the differences seen in the nearest rival comparisons for either card.

For context, the Quadro P2000’s nearest rivals are all within a tight 0.8% band: the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077, -0.5%), NVIDIA RTX A400 (6,078, -0.5%), AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, +0.5%), and AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6,001, +0.8%). The Quadro P2000’s average benchmark score of 6,049 sits squarely in this cluster, yet its OpenCL score of 20,125 is more than three times its own average. This indicates the OpenCL workload heavily favors the Quadro P2000’s architecture, likely due to its 1,024 shading units and 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 throughput.

The Radeon HD 8750M’s nearest rivals are similarly clustered: NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5,982, -0.2%), NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5,957, +0.2%), AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5,955, +0.3%), and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5,986, -0.3%). Its average score of 5,970 is right in the middle of this group. The 237.1% delta between the two cards in OpenCL is not just a win, it is a generational gap. The Quadro P2000’s 16 nm process node versus the HD 8750M’s 28 nm node, combined with 4,400 million transistors versus 950 million, explains the raw compute advantage.

While the head-to-head data shows only one test, the broader benchmark suite for the Quadro P2000 provides additional insight. Its Passmark G3D score is 6,956, its Geekbench Vulkan score is 23,566, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,933. The HD 8750M has no corresponding scores in these tests, so direct comparisons are impossible. However, the Quadro P2000’s Passmark DirectX scores (34 in DX10, 47 in DX11, 28 in DX12, 124 in DX9) and G2D score of 626 paint a picture of a card that is strong in compute but modest in legacy rasterization workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins in every measurable category where both cards have data. The OpenCL score is the headline, but its architectural advantages extend across the board. With 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus, it achieves 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the HD 8750M’s 1 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, which delivers only 28.80 GB/s. This nearly 5x bandwidth advantage makes the Quadro P2000 far better suited for memory-intensive compute tasks, such as large data sets or high-resolution textures.

The Quadro P2000 also leads in raw throughput metrics. Its pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s is nearly 9x the HD 8750M’s 6.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: 94.72 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s. The shading unit count (1,024 vs 384) and texture mapping units (64 vs 24) further reinforce the compute and fill-rate dominance. The Quadro P2000’s FP32 performance of 3.031 TFLOPS is 4.8x the HD 8750M’s 633.6 GFLOPS.

The Radeon HD 8750M’s only claim to a win is its percentile ranking. It sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P2000 is at the 35th percentile. This near-identical percentile despite the massive OpenCL delta suggests that the HD 8750M’s average score is representative of its typical workload, whereas the Quadro P2000’s average is dragged down by its weaker DirectX and G2D results. In other words, the HD 8750M is a consistent performer for its class, while the Quadro P2000 is a specialist that excels in compute but is only average in legacy graphics.

For use cases, the Quadro P2000 is the clear choice for OpenCL-heavy applications, GPU compute, or any workload that leverages its Vulkan 1.4 support and 12_1 DirectX feature level. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface make it suitable for professional multi-monitor setups. The HD 8750M, with its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and no display outputs listed, is more of a legacy mobile part, likely intended for basic graphics acceleration in laptops.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior GPU in raw performance. Its 237.1% lead in OpenCL, combined with higher bandwidth, pixel rate, and texture rate, makes it the only rational choice for compute-intensive tasks. However, the HD 8750M’s near-identical percentile ranking (34th vs 35th) suggests that in typical mixed workloads, both cards land in the same performance tier. The Quadro P2000’s average benchmark score of 6,049 is only 1.3% higher than the HD 8750M’s 5,970, despite the OpenCL outlier.

Who should pick the Quadro P2000? Anyone running OpenCL-based applications, professional workstation software, or Vulkan workloads. Its 5 GB memory capacity and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth are essential for large datasets. Its 16 nm process and 4,400 million transistors indicate a modern design with better efficiency per clock. The card is end-of-life, but its successor, Quadro Volta, is listed, and its predecessor, Quadro Maxwell, shows a clear lineage of compute-focused design.

Who should pick the Radeon HD 8750M? Given the data, only those constrained by legacy system compatibility or power envelope. The HD 8750M has no TDP listed, but its 28 nm process and 950 million transistors suggest a much lower power draw than the Quadro P2000’s 75 W TDP. Its DDR3 memory and 128-bit bus are adequate for basic tasks but bottleneck any serious compute. The card’s predecessor is London and successor is Gem System, indicating a short-lived mobile lineup. For a modern user, the Quadro P2000 is the clear winner unless the HD 8750M is already installed and the workload is trivial.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 than the AMD Radeon HD 8750M in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the HD 8750M scores 5,970. This is a 237.1% delta, making the Quadro P2000 over three times faster.

Q: Do both cards have similar overall performance rankings?

A: Yes. The Quadro P2000 is at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, and the HD 8750M is at the 34th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 6,049 and 5,970, respectively.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, yielding 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 8750M has 1 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better DirectX support?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the HD 8750M supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The Quadro P2000 also has higher Passmark DirectX scores in all tested versions (DX9, DX10, DX11, DX12).

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the AMD Radeon HD 8750M wins?

A: No. In the single head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the Quadro P2000 wins. The HD 8750M has no other benchmark scores listed.

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

A: The Quadro P2000 is built on a 16 nm process with 4,400 million transistors, while the HD 8750M uses a 28 nm process with 950 million transistors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial and explains the performance delta. The Quadro P2000 uses the Pascal architecture (chip GP106), fabricated by TSMC on a 16 nm process. It contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². In contrast, the HD 8750M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture (chip Mars), also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. It packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The Quadro P2000’s die is 2.6x larger and holds 4.6x more transistors.

Core configurations differ dramatically. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The HD 8750M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This 2.7x shading unit advantage and 5x ROP advantage directly translate to the Quadro P2000’s higher pixel rate (59.20 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (94.72 GTexel/s vs 19.80 GTexel/s). The FP32 compute is 3.031 TFLOPS for the Quadro P2000 versus 633.6 GFLOPS for the HD 8750M.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The Quadro P2000 uses 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), achieving 140.2 GB/s. The HD 8750M uses 1 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), achieving only 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro P2000’s bandwidth is 4.9x higher, which is critical for compute workloads that stream data.

Feature support also diverges. The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 8750M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro P2000 has a 75 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. It offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The HD 8750M has no TDP, slot width, power connector, or display output data, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The Quadro P2000 also has FP16 capability at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the HD 8750M has no FP16 data listed. Both cards are end-of-life, but the Quadro P2000’s successor (Quadro Volta) and predecessor (Quadro Maxwell) are documented, whereas the HD 8750M’s lineage (predecessor London, successor Gem System) reflects its older mobile focus.