AMD Radeon Pro 560X vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 560X and NVIDIA Quadro M2000 are two professional-grade GPUs from different architectural eras, with the data showing a near-even split in benchmark victories. The Radeon Pro 560X, built on a 14 nm process, and the Quadro M2000, on a 28 nm process, each claim one win in their shared head-to-head tests, yet their underlying specifications and performance profiles diverge significantly. The average benchmark scores place the AMD part at 15082 and the NVIDIA part at 14532, a difference of roughly 3.8%, but the individual test results reveal distinct strengths that cater to different workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560X leads with an average benchmark score of 15082, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M2000's 14532. This places the AMD part in the 57th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part sits in the 56th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins decisively in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 14588 against the AMD Radeon Pro 560X's 9663. This represents a 33.8% advantage for the NVIDIA part, the largest margin in any shared benchmark.

Q: What is the result of the Vulkan benchmark comparison?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560X takes the Vulkan test with a score of 16819, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14475. The AMD part is 16.2% ahead in this API, showcasing its modern architecture's strengths.

Q: Which GPU offers better pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has a significantly higher pixel rate of 37.22 GPixel/s, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 560X's 16.06 GPixel/s. This suggests the NVIDIA part excels in tasks that involve heavy rasterization and pixel processing.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X was released in July 2018, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 was released earlier in April 2016. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is Quadro Kepler, and its successor is Quadro Pascal.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. However, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has higher memory bandwidth at 105.8 GB/s, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 560X's 94.08 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X is built on the Polaris 21 chip using the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip with the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This node difference is a key differentiator: the AMD part packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm², while the NVIDIA part houses 2,940 million transistors on a much larger 228 mm² die, with a density of just 12.9M per mm².

The compute resources also differ markedly. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The NVIDIA Quadro M2000, by contrast, has fewer shading units at 768 and 48 TMUs, but doubles the ROP count to 32. This configuration explains the NVIDIA part's superior pixel rate (37.22 GPixel/s vs 16.06 GPixel/s) while the AMD part achieves a higher texture rate (64.26 GTexel/s vs 55.82 GTexel/s). In terms of raw floating-point throughput, the AMD part leads with 2.056 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, and it also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with the same 2.056 TFLOPS, whereas the NVIDIA part offers only 1.786 TFLOPS of FP32 with no listed FP16 capability.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of divergence. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has explicit base and boost clocks of 796 MHz and 1163 MHz respectively, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560X does not list base or boost clocks in the data. Memory clocks differ as well: the AMD part runs at 1470 MHz with 5.9 Gbps effective transfer, while the NVIDIA part runs at 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective. Both support PCIe 3.0, but the AMD part uses an x8 interface whereas the NVIDIA part uses x16. API support shows the NVIDIA part has a slight edge in DirectX (12_1 vs 12_0) and Vulkan (1.4 vs 1.3), though both support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmark tests paint a picture of contrasting strengths. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 delivers a commanding performance, scoring 14588 against the AMD Radeon Pro 560X's 9663. This 33.8% delta is the single largest performance gap between the two parts in any test. The NVIDIA part's higher memory bandwidth (105.8 GB/s vs 94.08 GB/s) and doubled ROP count likely contribute to this OpenCL advantage, which is particularly relevant for compute workloads that are sensitive to memory throughput and pixel processing.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script. Here, the AMD Radeon Pro 560X scores 16819, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 manages 14475. The AMD part is 16.2% ahead, a substantial margin that reflects its newer architecture's efficiency in modern graphics APIs. The AMD part's higher shading unit count (1024 vs 768) and superior texture rate (64.26 GTexel/s vs 55.82 GTexel/s) are likely factors in this Vulkan victory, as these resources directly feed geometry and texture-heavy rendering pipelines.

The overall win tally is even at one victory each. However, the magnitude of the wins is asymmetric: the NVIDIA part's OpenCL win is twice as large in percentage terms (33.8%) as the AMD part's Vulkan win (16.2%). This suggests that while both parts have clear strengths, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000's advantage in OpenCL is more pronounced than the AMD Radeon Pro 560X's advantage in Vulkan. The average benchmark scores reflect this balance, with the AMD part at 15082 and the NVIDIA part at 14532, a difference of only 3.8% overall.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the AMD Radeon Pro 560X's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti, with a delta of just 0.1% (15063 vs 15082). The AMD Radeon RX 7600 is 0.6% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is 0.8% behind. For the NVIDIA Quadro M2000, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M at 0.9% ahead (14404 vs 14532), followed by the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 at 1% ahead and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN at 1.1% ahead. These comparisons show that both GPUs sit in a tightly contested performance bracket, with the AMD part slightly higher in the overall standings.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the choice between these two GPUs hinges entirely on the target workload. For OpenCL-centric compute tasks, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is the clear winner, offering 33.8% higher performance than the AMD Radeon Pro 560X. Its higher pixel rate (37.22 GPixel/s) and memory bandwidth (105.8 GB/s) make it particularly suited for applications that stress these subsystems. The NVIDIA part also offers a more flexible physical design with a single-slot footprint, a 201 mm length, and four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a more versatile option for multi-display professional setups.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon Pro 560X is the better choice for Vulkan-based rendering workloads, where it is 16.2% faster than the NVIDIA part. Its newer 14 nm process and higher shading unit count (1024 vs 768) give it an edge in modern graphics APIs, and its FP16 support at 1:1 ratio may benefit applications that leverage half-precision arithmetic. The AMD part also has a higher average benchmark score overall (15082 vs 14532) and sits in a slightly higher percentile (57 vs 56), indicating marginally better all-around performance in the aggregate data.

Professionals who prioritize compute performance in OpenCL environments—common in scientific simulation and data analysis—should favor the NVIDIA Quadro M2000. Those whose work relies on Vulkan for real-time rendering or who need the latest API support should choose the AMD Radeon Pro 560X. The NVIDIA part's higher pixel rate suggests it may also be better for traditional CAD viewports that involve heavy rasterization. Neither card offers a decisive overall victory; the benchmark data shows a 1-1 split in wins, and the average scores are within 4% of each other, making the specific application the determining factor.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category, reflecting their distinct architectural generations. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. Die size differs substantially: the AMD part measures 123 mm² versus the NVIDIA part's 228 mm², despite similar transistor counts (3,000 million vs 2,940 million). This results in transistor densities of 24.4M/mm² for the AMD part and 12.9M/mm² for the NVIDIA part.

Clock specifications are present only for the NVIDIA Quadro M2000, which lists base and boost clocks of 796 MHz and 1163 MHz respectively; the AMD Radeon Pro 560X has no base or boost clock data. Memory clocks differ, with the AMD part at 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective) and the NVIDIA part at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). While both use 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, memory bandwidth favors the NVIDIA part at 105.8 GB/s versus 94.08 GB/s.

Compute resource counts diverge significantly: the AMD Radeon Pro 560X has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate heavily favors the NVIDIA part (37.22 GPixel/s vs 16.06 GPixel/s), while texture rate favors the AMD part (64.26 GTexel/s vs 55.82 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is higher on the AMD part (2.056 TFLOPS vs 1.786 TFLOPS), and the AMD part offers FP16 at 2.056 TFLOPS while the NVIDIA part lists no FP16 capability.

Physical and interface specifications also differ. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with portable-device-dependent outputs and no power connectors, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is a single-slot card with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and no power connectors, plus a suggested PSU rating of 250 W. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 on the AMD part versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the NVIDIA part. The NVIDIA card has specific dimensions of 201 mm in length and 111 mm in height. API support shows the NVIDIA part with DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part lists DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3; both support OpenGL 4.6.