AMD Radeon HD 8950M vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

The data clearly separates these two mobile-era GPUs: the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 leads in every recorded benchmark, while the AMD Radeon HD 8950M trails by margins that range from noticeable to decisive. The Quadro M2000’s average benchmark score of 14532 places it 8.6% ahead of the HD 8950M’s 13376, and its percentile ranking of 56 versus 54 confirms a higher standing among all GPUs. However, the HD 8950M is not without merit — it holds its own in raw compute density and offers a different architectural approach that may appeal in specific legacy workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins outright in both head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 14588 against the HD 8950M’s 13772, a 5.9% advantage. The gap widens substantially in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro M2000 hits 14475 versus 12979 — an 11.5% lead. This pattern indicates the Quadro M2000 handles both compute and graphics API workloads with greater efficiency, particularly in Vulkan where its Maxwell 2.0 architecture demonstrates stronger driver and hardware-level optimization.

The AMD Radeon HD 8950M’s only statistical wins are comparative. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD FirePro M6100 with a delta of 0.2% and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X at 0.4%, meaning it sits within a tight cluster of similarly performing mobile GPUs. The HD 8950M’s 1.651 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is only 7.6% below the Quadro M2000’s 1.786 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 51.60 GTexel/s trails by just 7.6% as well. For users tied to the GCN 2.0 ecosystem, the HD 8950M represents a capable baseline, but the data does not show a single workload where it surpasses the Quadro M2000.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but their internal designs diverge sharply. The Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, packing 2,940 million transistors into a 228 mm² die. The HD 8950M uses the Saturn chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, containing 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. This gives the HD 8950M a slightly higher transistor density at 13.0M per mm² versus the Quadro M2000’s 12.9M per mm², but the Quadro M2000 compensates with 41.3% more total transistors.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The Quadro M2000 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 105.8 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 8950M halves the capacity to 2 GB, also on a 128-bit bus, but with lower 88.00 GB/s bandwidth due to its 5.5 Gbps effective memory speed versus the Quadro M2000’s 6.6 Gbps. Shading unit counts are identical at 768, and both have 48 TMUs, but the ROP count differs: the Quadro M2000 has 32 ROPs versus 16 on the HD 8950M. This directly explains the pixel rate gap — 37.22 GPixel/s for the Quadro M2000 versus 17.20 GPixel/s for the HD 8950M, a 116% advantage.

The Quadro M2000 supports DirectX 12_1, while the HD 8950M only reaches DirectX 12_0. Vulkan support also differs: the Quadro M2000 lists Vulkan 1.4, while the HD 8950M is capped at 1.2.170. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. The Quadro M2000 is a single-slot desktop card with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the HD 8950M is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs. Power requirements favor the Quadro M2000 at 75 W TDP versus 100 W for the HD 8950M, and the Quadro M2000 specifies a 250 W suggested PSU while the HD 8950M lists none.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear recommendation: for any workload covered by the benchmark suite, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is the superior choice. Its 11.5% Vulkan lead is particularly decisive, indicating that modern API workloads will run markedly better on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The Quadro M2000 also offers double the memory (4 GB versus 2 GB), higher bandwidth (105.8 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s), and double the ROPs, all of which translate into tangible real-world advantages for rendering and compute tasks.

The AMD Radeon HD 8950M should only be selected in scenarios where its MXM form factor is mandatory, or where the user is locked into a GCN-specific software stack. Its 13.0M / mm² transistor density is marginally higher, and its FP32 output of 1.651 TFLOPS is within 7.6% of the Quadro M2000’s 1.786 TFLOPS, so raw compute density is competitive. However, the HD 8950M’s lower memory capacity, reduced ROP count, and older Vulkan support create a persistent deficit that no architectural advantage can overcome in the recorded tests. The Quadro M2000 wins 2–0 in head-to-head benchmarks, and that is the final word.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has an average benchmark score of 14532, compared to the AMD Radeon HD 8950M’s 13376, a difference of 8.6%.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M2000 scores 14475 against the HD 8950M’s 12979, giving the Quadro M2000 an 11.5% advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and the AMD Radeon HD 8950M have 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the HD 8950M has 2 GB, both on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 achieves 37.22 GPixel/s, while the AMD Radeon HD 8950M achieves 17.20 GPixel/s, a 116% difference in favor of the Quadro M2000.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Quadro M2000 was released on 2016-04-07, and the HD 8950M on 2013-05-13.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the Quadro M2000 scoring 14588 against the HD 8950M’s 13772, a 5.9% margin. This is a moderate win, reflecting the Quadro M2000’s higher memory bandwidth (105.8 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s) and doubled ROP count, which help in memory-intensive compute workloads. The HD 8950M’s lower clock speeds — its memory runs at 1375 MHz versus the Quadro M2000’s 1653 MHz — further explain the gap.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is where the separation becomes stark. The Quadro M2000 posts 14475, beating the HD 8950M’s 12979 by 11.5%. This larger delta suggests that the Quadro M2000’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, with its support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the HD 8950M’s Vulkan 1.2.170, provides a meaningful driver-level advantage in modern graphics API execution. The HD 8950M’s lower pixel rate of 17.20 GPixel/s also hampers its ability to keep up in draw-call-heavy Vulkan scenarios.

Breaking down the components of these scores, the Quadro M2000’s 32 ROPs versus 16 on the HD 8950M is the most significant hardware difference. This directly doubles the pixel throughput ceiling, which shows up in both benchmark results. The Quadro M2000’s higher boost clock — 1163 MHz versus no listed boost for the HD 8950M — also contributes to its superior texture rate of 55.82 GTexel/s versus 51.60 GTexel/s. While the HD 8950M’s 1.651 TFLOPS FP32 is respectable, the Quadro M2000’s 1.786 TFLOPS, combined with better memory subsystem metrics, produces consistent wins across both API tests.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every measurable specification except for a few core counts. Both have 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, a 128-bit memory bus, and use GDDR5 memory. From there, the differences accumulate:

• Process node: Both use 28 nm, but the Quadro M2000 has a 228 mm² die with 2,940 million transistors, while the HD 8950M has a 160 mm² die with 2,080 million transistors.
• Memory: The Quadro M2000 offers 4 GB at 105.8 GB/s; the HD 8950M offers 2 GB at 88.00 GB/s.
• ROPs: The Quadro M2000 has 32 ROPs; the HD 8950M has 16.
• Clocks: The Quadro M2000 has a base clock of 796 MHz and boost of 1163 MHz; the HD 8950M lists no base or boost clocks.
• Pixel rate: 37.22 GPixel/s for the Quadro M2000 versus 17.20 GPixel/s for the HD 8950M.
• Texture rate: 55.82 GTexel/s for the Quadro M2000 versus 51.60 GTexel/s for the HD 8950M.
• FP32: 1.786 TFLOPS for the Quadro M2000 versus 1.651 TFLOPS for the HD 8950M.
• TDP: 75 W for the Quadro M2000 versus 100 W for the HD 8950M.
• Form factor: The Quadro M2000 is single-slot with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs; the HD 8950M is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs.
• DirectX support: The Quadro M2000 supports 12_1; the HD 8950M supports 12_0.
• Vulkan support: The Quadro M2000 lists 1.4; the HD 8950M lists 1.2.170.
• Power connector: The Quadro M2000 uses none; the HD 8950M lists null.
• Suggested PSU: The Quadro M2000 specifies 250 W; the HD 8950M lists null.
• Dimensions: The Quadro M2000 is 201 mm long and 111 mm high; the HD 8950M has no listed dimensions.