AMD Radeon PRO W7500 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive margin in favor of the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 across the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7500 scores 58,213 against the Quadro M2000's 14,588, a delta of 299% in AMD's favor. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: 68,634 versus 14,475, a 374.2% advantage. These are not marginal improvements; they represent generational leaps in raw compute throughput.

The W7500's average benchmark score of 16,415 places it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the M2000's average of 14,532 sits at the 56th percentile. Despite the smaller percentile gap, the actual score difference is substantial. The W7500's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell at 16,408 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT at 16,361 (0.3% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M at 16,351 (0.4% ahead). The M2000's closest competitors are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M at 14,404 (0.9% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 at 14,385 (1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN at 14,373 (1.1% ahead).

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the W7500, the PassMark G3D score of 13,368 and GPU compute score of 5,910 show balanced performance across graphics and compute workloads. The M2000 lacks these specific PassMark entries in the database, so direct comparisons on those tests are not possible. The W7500 also shows strength in legacy DirectX tests, scoring 200 in DirectX 9, 125 in DirectX 11, 65 in DirectX 10, and 46 in DirectX 12. The G2D score of 1,174 indicates solid 2D acceleration capabilities.

The delta percentages in the head-to-head results are among the largest recorded in the database for comparable workstation cards. A 299% lead in OpenCL and a 374.2% lead in Vulkan indicate that the W7500 is not merely faster but operates in a different performance class entirely. The M2000's architecture, dating from the Maxwell era, simply cannot keep pace with the modern RDNA 3.0 design in these compute-oriented workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 in every benchmark category where both have recorded scores. The W7500 wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record in direct comparisons. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the W7500 is the superior choice by a wide margin.

The M2000's only advantages are historical. It was released on 2016-04-07 and is now marked as end-of-life, while the W7500 launched on 2023-08-02 and remains in active production. The M2000's successor is the Quadro Pascal, and its predecessor is the Quadro Kepler. The W7500's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, and it has no successor listed in the database.

From a pure performance standpoint, there is no scenario in the recorded data where the M2000 wins. The W7500 delivers 12.19 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 1.786 TFLOPS for the M2000, a 6.8x raw compute advantage. Memory bandwidth also favors the W7500 at 256.0 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s. The W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory compared to 4 GB of GDDR5 on the M2000, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The M2000 may still be adequate for basic 2D workstation tasks or legacy software that does not leverage modern APIs, but the benchmark data does not support any performance-related reason to choose it over the W7500. The W7500 also offers newer display outputs with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 versus the M2000's 4x DisplayPort 1.2, which affects future display connectivity options.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras of GPU design. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation, also known as Navi III Series. The process node is 6 nm at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture. It belongs to the Quadro Maxwell generation, designated Mx000. The process node is 28 nm at TSMC, with 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, giving a much lower transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. The die is actually larger than the W7500's despite containing far fewer transistors, a direct consequence of the older manufacturing process.

Clock speeds reflect the architectural and process differences. The W7500 runs at 1500 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The M2000 runs at 796 MHz base and 1163 MHz boost. The W7500's higher clocks are enabled by the more efficient 6 nm process and newer architecture. Memory clocks also differ: the W7500 uses 2000 MHz memory with 16 Gbps effective data rate, while the M2000 uses 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the W7500. It has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 raster output units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. The W7500 also supports FP16 compute at 24.37 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the M2000 has no recorded FP16 capability. Pixel rate is 108.8 GPixel/s for the W7500 versus 37.22 GPixel/s for the M2000. Texture rate is 190.4 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s.

API support differs as well. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the M2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7500 and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the M2000. Despite the M2000 having more PCIe lanes, the W7500's newer PCIe generation provides higher bandwidth per lane. Power consumption is similar: 70 W TDP for the W7500 and 75 W for the M2000. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The W7500 measures 216 mm in length, 115 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The M2000 measures 201 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with no width recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 delivers 12.19 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 delivers 1.786 TFLOPS. The W7500 also provides 24.37 TFLOPS of FP16 compute, which the M2000 does not support.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 105.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit memory bus width.

Q: What are the production statuses of these cards?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is marked as Active in the database. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is marked as End-of-life. The M2000's successor is listed as Quadro Pascal, and the W7500 has no successor recorded.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The M2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. Both support Vulkan 1.5. The W7500 also has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the M2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: How big is the performance gap in Geekbench tests?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL the W7500 scores 58,213 versus 14,588, a 299% delta. In Geekbench Vulkan the W7500 scores 68,634 versus 14,475, a 374.2% delta. The W7500 wins both tests.

Q: What is the W7500's launch MSRP?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 had a launch MSRP of 429 USD. The M2000 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins in every recorded benchmark category. The Geekbench OpenCL result shows a 299% lead, and the Geekbench Vulkan result shows a 374.2% lead. In the database's average benchmark score, the W7500 reaches 16,415 versus 14,532 for the M2000. The W7500's percentile ranking of 59 against the M2000's 56 reflects this across the broader GPU landscape.

The W7500 is the clear choice for OpenCL compute workloads such as rendering, simulation, and scientific analysis. Its 12.19 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth handle large datasets efficiently. The 8 GB memory capacity doubles the M2000's 4 GB, allowing larger textures and models to reside in VRAM. The 28 ray tracing cores open up hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads that the M2000 cannot perform at all.

The M2000 has no benchmark wins in the database. Its only advantages are lower power draw at 75 W versus 70 W, which is actually higher than the W7500, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface that provides more physical lanes. The M2000's smaller physical footprint at 201 mm length versus 216 mm may fit in tighter chassis, but the W7500's 70 W TDP and single-slot design already offer excellent space efficiency.

For legacy software that requires Maxwell-era driver behavior or specific Quadro Maxwell compatibility, the M2000 might still be relevant, but no benchmark data supports this. The W7500's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.5 makes it future-proof for modern applications. The M2000's DirectX 12 (12_1) support lacks the feature level of the W7500's 12_2 implementation.

The practical use-case split is straightforward: the W7500 for any modern workstation workload, and the M2000 only for scenarios where its end-of-life status and older architecture are specifically required by legacy software. The benchmark data does not show a single test where the M2000 outperforms the W7500.