AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by roughly three years of development and aimed at different workloads. The data in the database shows that the Quadro 2000D wins the only shared benchmark, but the R7 M260 brings modern architecture features that the older Fermi-based card cannot match. For anyone deciding between these two end-of-life products, the choice hinges on whether raw compute in one specific test matters more than architectural longevity and API support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708. That gives the Quadro a 5.6% advantage, which is a meaningful but not overwhelming margin. The delta percentage of -5.6% recorded for the R7 M260 indicates it trails by that amount in this single test.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card puts this score in context. The Quadro 2000D sits at 3930, which is only 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D at 3919, and 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953. The R7 M260, meanwhile, has an average benchmark score of 4499 across all its recorded tests, but its OpenCL result of 3708 is the one that matters for this comparison. That score places it 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505 average), 1.3% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560 average), and 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569 average). These are all close margins, suggesting the R7 M260 performs in a similar band to those cards despite the lower OpenCL number.

The overall percentile rankings reinforce the picture. The R7 M260 lands in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000D sits in the 23rd percentile. That means the R7 M260 is slightly better positioned relative to the entire GPU landscape, even though it loses the head-to-head OpenCL test. The average benchmark score for the R7 M260 is 4499, which is higher than the Quadro 2000D’s 3930, but that average includes a Vulkan result of 5289 that the Quadro cannot produce because it lacks Vulkan support. In pure OpenCL terms, the Quadro is the faster card.

One important detail: the database records only one head-to-head test, and the Quadro wins it. There is no Vulkan benchmark for the Quadro 2000D, so the R7 M260’s 5289 Vulkan score stands alone. That means the R7 M260 has a measurable advantage in Vulkan workloads, but it cannot be directly compared to the Quadro in that area since the Quadro has no recorded Vulkan score at all.

Architecture Differences

The R7 M260 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm process from TSMC, with the Topaz chip. It packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 2000D, by contrast, uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC, with the GF106 chip. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of just 4.9 million per square millimeter. The R7 M260 is clearly the more modern design, with nearly three times the transistor density despite being a smaller chip.

The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operations pipelines. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations pipelines. So the AMD card has twice the shading units, while the NVIDIA card has more texture units and more ROPs. This reflects different design priorities: the R7 M260 focuses on compute throughput, while the Quadro 2000D emphasizes texture filtering and pixel output.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The R7 M260 runs at a base clock of 940 MHz with a boost up to 980 MHz. The Quadro 2000D has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, but its memory clock is 650 MHz with 2.6 Gbps effective data rate. The R7 M260’s memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The R7 M260’s memory operates at a higher raw clock, but the memory type and bus width change the actual bandwidth picture.

The R7 M260 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro has nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which is a substantial advantage for any workload that depends on moving data quickly. The R7 M260’s smaller bus and slower memory type limit its bandwidth potential, even though it has more memory capacity.

The R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. This is a major architectural difference. The R7 M260 is built for modern APIs, including Vulkan, while the Quadro 2000D is limited to older DirectX 11-level features and cannot run Vulkan applications at all. The R7 M260’s FP16 compute is listed at 752.6 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it can do FP16 and FP32 at the same rate. The Quadro 2000D has no recorded FP16 support.

The bus interface also differs. The R7 M260 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The newer PCIe 3.0 standard offers more bandwidth per lane, but the Quadro’s full x16 connection may compensate in some scenarios. The R7 M260 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connectors, or display outputs, while the Quadro 2000D has a 62 W TDP, single-slot design, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and 2x DVI outputs. The Quadro is a low-power, single-slot professional card with a fixed 178 mm length and 111 mm height.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5.6% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s 3708. The Quadro wins this specific benchmark.

Q: Does the R7 M260 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the R7 M260 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289. The Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support and no Vulkan benchmark score.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 2000D has 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the R7 M260’s 14.40 GB/s. This comes from the Quadro’s 128-bit GDDR5 memory, while the R7 M260 uses 64-bit DDR3.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The R7 M260 has a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000D has 4.9 million per square millimeter on a 40 nm process. The R7 M260 is a denser, more modern chip.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, double the Quadro 2000D’s 192. However, the Quadro has 32 texture units versus 24, and 16 ROPs versus 8.

Q: What is the release timeline?

A: The R7 M260 was released on June 10, 2014, while the Quadro 2000D was released on October 4, 2011. The R7 M260 is roughly three years newer.

The Verdict

The data supports different picks depending on the workload. If the priority is OpenCL compute performance, the Quadro 2000D is the better choice. Its 3930 score beats the R7 M260’s 3708 by 5.6%, and its higher memory bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s gives it a clear advantage in memory-bound tasks. The Quadro also offers a full 128-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory, which are meaningful for professional applications that move large datasets.

If the priority is modern API support and compute features, the R7 M260 is the better option. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro 2000D only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. The R7 M260’s FP16 capability at 752.6 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio is also absent from the Quadro’s specifications. The R7 M260’s average benchmark score of 4499 is higher than the Quadro’s 3930, driven by its Vulkan result, which suggests better overall compute capability in modern workloads.

The percentile ranking slightly favors the R7 M260 at 26 versus 23 for the Quadro. That indicates the R7 M260 performs better relative to the entire GPU market, even though it loses the single shared benchmark. The Quadro 2000D is an older design from 2011 on a 40 nm process, while the R7 M260 is a 2014 part on 28 nm. For anyone building a system today with these end-of-life cards, the R7 M260 offers better architectural fundamentals, while the Quadro 2000D offers a specific OpenCL advantage and professional display outputs.

The Quadro 2000D’s launch MSRP was 599 USD, a detail that reflects its original professional positioning. The R7 M260 has no recorded launch MSRP. The Quadro’s 62 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it an easy drop-in for compact systems, while the R7 M260’s power characteristics are not recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measured specification. The R7 M260 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture on 28 nm, while the Quadro 2000D uses Fermi on 40 nm. Transistors are 1,550 million versus 1,170 million, with die sizes of 125 mm² versus 238 mm². Transistor density is 12.4 million per square millimeter versus 4.9 million. The R7 M260 has no recorded base clock for the Quadro, but the R7 M260’s base is 940 MHz with 980 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective for the R7 M260, versus 650 MHz with 2.6 Gbps effective for the Quadro.

Memory size is 2 GB DDR3 for the R7 M260 versus 1024 MB GDDR5 for the Quadro. Bus width is 64 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is 14.40 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s. Shading units are 384 versus 192, TMUs are 24 versus 32, and ROPs are 8 versus 16. Pixel rate is 7.840 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 23.52 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 752.6 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS. FP16 is 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1) for the R7 M260, with no FP16 for the Quadro.

The Quadro has a TDP of 62 W, single-slot width, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and 2x DVI outputs. The R7 M260 has none of these recorded. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M260 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro. APIs differ: DirectX 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6 for both, and Vulkan 1.2.170 only for the R7 M260. The Quadro has dimensions of 178 mm length and 111 mm height, while the R7 M260 has none recorded. Release dates are June 10, 2014 for the R7 M260 and October 4, 2011 for the Quadro.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 2000D wins in OpenCL compute, memory bandwidth, texture units, ROPs, and pixel fill rate. Its 41.60 GB/s bandwidth is nearly three times the R7 M260’s, which matters for large data transfers. The Quadro’s 16 ROPs versus 8 and 32 TMUs versus 24 give it an edge in rasterization and texture-heavy workloads. Its 5.000 GPixel/s pixel rate is lower than the R7 M260’s 7.840 GPixel/s, so the R7 M260 actually wins on pixel throughput. The Quadro also wins in the OpenCL benchmark by 5.6%, and its nearest rivals sit very close, with the Quadro K2000D just 0.3% behind.

The R7 M260 wins in FP32 compute with 752.6 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS, a 57% advantage. It has twice the shading units at 384 versus 192. It wins on texture rate at 23.52 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. It wins on pixel rate at 7.840 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s. It supports Vulkan, which the Quadro cannot, and its Vulkan score of 5289 is the highest recorded benchmark for either card. Its average benchmark score of 4499 exceeds the Quadro’s 3930. Its 26th percentile ranking beats the Quadro’s 23rd. The R7 M260 also has more memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1024 MB, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the Quadro’s 11_0 feature level.

For use cases: the Quadro 2000D fits legacy OpenCL applications, DVI-based multi-monitor setups, and situations where memory bandwidth is the bottleneck. The R7 M260 fits Vulkan-based workloads, modern DirectX applications, and compute tasks that leverage FP32 throughput. The R7 M260’s smaller die and higher transistor density suggest better power efficiency per transistor, though no TDP is recorded for it. The Quadro’s 62 W TDP is explicitly low, making it suitable for power-constrained systems.

The database shows a clear split: the Quadro 2000D is a professional card from 2011 with strong memory bandwidth and OpenCL results, while the R7 M260 is a 2014 mobile-oriented chip with modern API support and higher compute throughput. Neither card dominates completely, and the choice depends entirely on which set of strengths matters more for the target application. For modern software that uses Vulkan or DirectX 12 features, the R7 M260 is the only viable option. For legacy OpenCL pipelines or bandwidth-sensitive tasks, the Quadro 2000D has the measured advantage.