AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a clear, if limited, picture of these two end-of-life mobile and workstation graphics parts. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 holds the sole head-to-head benchmark win in the database. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 2000 scores 3898 against the AMD Radeon R7 M260's 3708, a delta of 4.9 percent. This makes the NVIDIA part the stronger choice for compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, which is a common API for professional and scientific applications.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260, however, shows its strength in a different arena. The database includes a Geekbench Vulkan score for the AMD part, 5289, while no Vulkan result is recorded for the Quadro 2000. This indicates that the R7 M260 is the only one of the two with functional Vulkan support in the tested environment. For tasks or applications that can utilize the Vulkan API, the AMD part has a measurable advantage, as the NVIDIA card has no recorded score to compete with. In terms of overall average benchmark score, the AMD R7 M260 reaches 4499, which is higher than the Quadro 2000's 3898. This suggests that across the mixed set of recorded tests, the AMD part is more balanced.

Breaking down the wins further, the AMD R7 M260 sits at the 26th percentile in the global GPU database, while the Quadro 2000 is at the 23rd percentile. This indicates that the AMD part is ranked higher relative to all other GPUs. The R7 M260's average score of 4499 places it just behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569), the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577), and the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560), with deltas of -1.5, -1.7, and -1.3 percent respectively. The Quadro 2000, on the other hand, is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883), trailing by 0.4 percent, and slightly behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919) and Quadro 2000D (3930). The data shows that the R7 M260 competes in a slightly higher performance tier than the Quadro 2000 when considering the aggregate benchmark score.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark, reflecting their different release eras and design goals. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Topaz chip, and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process allows for a transistor count of 1,550 million packed into a die size of 125 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000, in contrast, uses the Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, built on an older 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a much larger die of 238 mm², resulting in a lower transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The AMD R7 M260 is equipped with 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. This gives the NVIDIA part nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for certain professional workloads. The AMD part compensates with double the memory capacity.

Compute unit configurations also differ significantly. The AMD R7 M260 features 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part has double the shader count, while the NVIDIA part has more TMUs and ROPs. This results in respective pixel rates of 7.840 GPixel/s for AMD and 5.000 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, and texture rates of 23.52 GTexel/s for AMD and 20.00 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. The AMD R7 M260 leads in both fillrate metrics.

The AMD R7 M260 supports a broader set of modern APIs, including DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but its Vulkan support is listed as null in the database. The bus interfaces also differ: the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA part uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16. The Quadro 2000 has a defined 62 W TDP, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU. The AMD R7 M260's TDP and power requirements are not recorded. Finally, the NVIDIA card has a release date of late 2010, while the AMD part was released in mid-2014, explaining the technological gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898. This is a 4.9 percent difference in favor of the NVIDIA card. This result is notable because the AMD part has double the shading units (384 vs 192) and a much higher FP32 compute rating of 752.6 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS. Despite this theoretical compute advantage, the NVIDIA part wins the OpenCL test. This suggests that the Fermi architecture's memory bandwidth (41.60 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s) and its 128-bit memory bus play a significant role in this specific workload, or that the OpenCL driver and implementation for the older NVIDIA card is more efficient in this scenario.

The AMD R7 M260 also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289. This is a substantial score, higher than its own OpenCL result. However, there is no corresponding Vulkan score for the Quadro 2000. The NVIDIA card's Vulkan support is listed as null, and no benchmark result exists in the database. Therefore, in any Vulkan-based application, the AMD part would be the only functional option of the two, and its score of 5289 stands as the reference point. The average benchmark score for the R7 M260 is 4499, which is the midpoint between its OpenCL and Vulkan scores, indicating that the Vulkan result is the stronger of the two for this GPU. The Quadro 2000's average score is identical to its single OpenCL score, 3898.

When looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the AMD R7 M260's average score of 4499 puts it within 1.7 percent of the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577) and within 1.5 percent of the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569). It is also 1.3 percent behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560). The NVIDIA Quadro 2000's average score of 3898 is 0.4 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883) and 0.5 to 0.8 percent behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919) and Quadro 2000D (3930) respectively. This data positions the Quadro 2000 in a lower performance bracket than the R7 M260 when all recorded benchmarks are considered.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: these are two different tools for different jobs. For any workload that relies on the OpenCL API, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is the better performer. Its 3898 score against the R7 M260's 3708, a 4.9 percent lead, is the only head-to-head data point available. This makes the Quadro 2000 the choice for legacy OpenCL compute tasks, particularly those that benefit from its significantly higher memory bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s.

For anything that can use the Vulkan API, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 is the only option with a recorded score. Its 5289 result in Vulkan is dramatically higher than its own OpenCL score, and the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support or benchmark entry. Furthermore, the R7 M260 has a higher average benchmark score (4499 vs 3898) and a higher global percentile ranking (26th vs 23rd). The AMD part also offers double the memory capacity (2 GB vs 1024 MB) and a more modern feature set, including DirectX 12 (12_0) support compared to the Quadro's 12 (11_0). Users who need a general-purpose, modern graphics solution should choose the AMD Radeon R7 M260. Users with a specific, legacy OpenCL-bound professional application should consider the NVIDIA Quadro 2000, despite its older architecture and lower overall score. The data does not indicate that the Quadro 2000 is the superior product; it only shows that it wins in the single test where both have results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins with a score of 3898, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M260's 3708. This is a 4.9 percent difference in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M260 have a better average benchmark score?

A: Yes. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has an average benchmark score of 4499, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has an average score of 3898. The AMD part also ranks higher in the global percentile, at 26th compared to the Quadro's 23rd.

Q: Which GPU supports the Vulkan API?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has Vulkan support (version 1.2.170) and a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed in the database, and no Vulkan benchmark score is recorded for it.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 2000's average score of 3898 is 0.4 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883), and 0.5 percent behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919), and 0.8 percent behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930).

Q: What is the architectural difference in process nodes?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 is built on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is built on a 40 nm process. This results in the AMD part having a higher transistor density of 12.4M per mm², compared to the NVIDIA part's 4.9M per mm².