AMD Radeon Pro 455 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data clearly splits these two professional GPUs by workload and platform. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is the stronger compute performer in the two shared benchmark tests, winning both head-to-head comparisons. Its average benchmark score sits at 14,532, which places it in the 56th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon Pro 455 averages 12,831, landing in the 52nd percentile. That is a meaningful gap in overall compute capability.

For users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Quadro M2000 is the straightforward choice. It leads by 41.1% in OpenCL and by 18.3% in Vulkan. The Radeon Pro 455 only appears in the database with a Metal benchmark score (15,916), which the Quadro does not have a recorded result for, so on Apple platforms using Metal, the Radeon has a specific advantage that cannot be compared directly.

The physical design tells the rest of the story. The Quadro M2000 is a single-slot, 75 W card with no power connectors, drawing power entirely from the PCIe slot. The Radeon Pro 455 is an MXM module with a 35 W TDP, designed for portable or compact systems. If you need a desktop workstation card with four DisplayPort outputs, the Quadro fits. If the system requires an MXM form factor, the Radeon is the only one of the two that physically works.

Neither card is current; both are end-of-life. The Quadro M2000 launched in April 2016, while the Radeon Pro 455 launched in October 2016. For pure compute in shared APIs, the Quadro wins. For Metal-specific macOS environments or MXM slots, the Radeon is the relevant option.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, featuring 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 12.9 million per mm². The Radeon Pro 455 uses the Baffin chip on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, with 3,000 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, giving a density of 24.4 million per mm². The Radeon packs slightly more transistors into nearly half the die area.

Architecturally, the Quadro is Maxwell 2.0 from NVIDIA, while the Radeon is GCN 4.0 from AMD. Both have 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units, so the core count matches. The Radeon has 16 ROPs, half of the Quadro's 32 ROPs. That difference shows up directly in pixel fill rates: the Quadro reaches 37.22 GPixel/s versus the Radeon's 13.68 GPixel/s. Texture rates also favor the Quadro at 55.82 GTexel/s versus 41.04 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute is close in theory. The Quadro delivers 1.786 TFLOPS, while the Radeon delivers 1,313.3 GFLOPS (about 1.31 TFLOPS). The Radeon also lists FP16 at 1,313.3 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 figure. Memory clocks differ too: the Quadro runs at 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective, while the Radeon runs at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective.

API support is similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon supports Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro lists DirectX 12_1, while the Radeon lists DirectX 12_0. The Radeon has a Metal benchmark result, which suggests Metal support, but the Quadro's API list in the database does not mention Metal.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 averages 14,532, which is higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 455's average of 12,831. The Quadro sits in the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon sits in the 52nd.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro M2000 scores 14,588 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Radeon Pro 455 scores 10,336. That gives the Quadro a 41.1% lead in that test.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 455 have any benchmark advantage?

A: The Radeon Pro 455 has a recorded Geekbench Metal score of 15,916, which is the only Metal result in this comparison. The Quadro M2000 has no Metal benchmark listed in the database, so in Metal-specific workloads the Radeon is the only one with measured data.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro M2000 has a 75 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, with no power connectors needed. The Radeon Pro 455 has a 35 W TDP and also uses no power connectors, but no suggested PSU is listed.

Q: Can both cards fit in the same system?

A: No. The Quadro M2000 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 201 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Radeon Pro 455 is an MXM module using PCIe 3.0 x8, designed for portable devices. They are physically incompatible form factors.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon Pro 455 has 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the Quadro's memory bandwidth is 105.8 GB/s versus the Radeon's 81.28 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every physical and performance specification. The process node goes from 28 nm on the Quadro to 14 nm on the Radeon. Transistor count is close (2,940 million versus 3,000 million), but die size is very different: 228 mm² for the Quadro versus 123 mm² for the Radeon. Transistor density is 12.9M per mm² versus 24.4M per mm².

Clock speeds are only listed for the Quadro in the database: base 796 MHz, boost 1163 MHz. The Radeon has no base or boost clocks recorded. Memory clock differs as well: the Quadro runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), while the Radeon runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is 4 GB on the Quadro versus 2 GB on the Radeon. Both use GDDR5 and a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth is 105.8 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s. The ROP count is 32 versus 16. Pixel rate is 37.22 GPixel/s versus 13.68 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 55.82 GTexel/s versus 41.04 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1.786 TFLOPS versus 1,313.3 GFLOPS. The Radeon has FP16 at 1,313.3 GFLOPS, while the Quadro has no FP16 listing.

TDP is 75 W versus 35 W. Form factor is single-slot versus MXM module. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.2 on the Quadro, while the Radeon's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro has dimensions recorded (201 mm length, 111 mm height), while the Radeon has none. The Radeon lists no suggested PSU, while the Quadro lists 250 W.

Vulkan support differs: 1.4 on the Quadro versus 1.3 on the Radeon. DirectX feature level is 12_1 versus 12_0. The Radeon has a Metal benchmark score; the Quadro does not. The Quadro has a predecessor (Quadro Kepler) and successor (Quadro Pascal) listed; the Radeon has neither.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two shared benchmark tests between these GPUs. Both are wins for the NVIDIA Quadro M2000, giving it a 2-0 record in head-to-head comparisons.

The first test is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro scores 14,588, while the Radeon scores 10,336. That is a 41.1% delta, which is a substantial margin. In practical terms, OpenCL compute workloads will take noticeably longer on the Radeon. This aligns with the FP32 numbers: the Quadro's 1.786 TFLOPS versus the Radeon's 1,313.3 GFLOPS is about a 36% gap, so the benchmark result tracks closely with theoretical compute.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro scores 14,475, while the Radeon scores 12,240. The delta is 18.3%. This is a smaller gap than OpenCL, but still a clear win for the Quadro. Vulkan workloads will run faster on the Quadro, though the Radeon is more competitive here than in OpenCL.

The Radeon has one additional benchmark that the Quadro cannot be compared on: Geekbench Metal at 15,916. This is the highest single benchmark score recorded for either GPU in this comparison. For Metal-specific workloads, the Radeon's score is 1,328 points higher than the Quadro's best OpenCL score of 14,588, though these are different APIs and not directly comparable.

Looking at nearest rivals provides context. The Quadro's average of 14,532 sits between the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14,692, which is 1.1% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14,404, which is 0.9% lower). The Radeon Pro 455's average of 12,831 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830, 0% delta) and the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847, 0.1% lower). The Quadro outperforms its closest rival by a small margin, while the Radeon is effectively tied with its nearest competitors.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins in every shared benchmark category. It is 41.1% faster in OpenCL and 18.3% faster in Vulkan. It has double the memory (4 GB versus 2 GB), double the ROPs (32 versus 16), and significantly higher memory bandwidth (105.8 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s). Its pixel rate is 2.7 times higher than the Radeon's, which matters for fill-rate-bound workloads. The Quadro also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.3) and a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 12_0).

The Quadro is the desktop workstation card. It has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a single-slot design, and a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. It draws 75 W and needs a 250 W PSU, which is modest for a professional card. For any OpenCL or Vulkan compute task on a desktop, the data points squarely to the Quadro.

The AMD Radeon Pro 455 has specific advantages that are not reflected in the shared benchmarks. Its Metal score of 15,916 is the only Metal data point in this comparison, making it the choice for Metal-centric macOS workflows. Its MXM module form factor means it fits in portable systems where the Quadro's PCIe slot design cannot go. At 35 W, it draws less than half the power of the Quadro, which matters for thermally constrained or battery-powered systems.

The Radeon also has a smaller die (123 mm² versus 228 mm²) and a denser transistor layout (24.4M per mm² versus 12.9M per mm²), reflecting its newer 14 nm process. It has FP16 capability at 1,313.3 GFLOPS, which the Quadro does not list. For workloads that use FP16 or Metal, or for MXM-based portable systems, the Radeon is the only option between the two.

In short: pick the Quadro for raw compute, memory capacity, and desktop display connectivity. Pick the Radeon for Metal, low power draw, and MXM compatibility. The shared benchmark data does not support choosing the Radeon for OpenCL or Vulkan performance, where it trails by 41.1% and 18.3% respectively.