AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. In the two shared benchmark tests, the Quadro P2000 wins both, with no contests going the other way.

The most dramatic difference appears in Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro P2000 scores 23,566, while the Radeon R7 M260X manages only 4,631. That is a 408.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part. In practical terms, this means the Quadro P2000 delivers over five times the Vulkan compute throughput of the AMD mobile chip. For any workload that relies on modern graphics APIs, the gap is enormous.

Geekbench OpenCL tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The Quadro P2000 records 20,125 points against 5,690 for the Radeon R7 M260X. That works out to a 253.7% lead for NVIDIA. This indicates that even in cross-vendor compute scenarios, the Quadro P2000 is operating in a completely different performance tier.

Looking at the broader database averages, the Quadro P2000 posts an average benchmark score of 6,049, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The Radeon R7 M260X averages 5,161, which puts it in the 30th percentile. While both sit in the lower half of the overall distribution, the Quadro P2000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6,077 (0.5% faster), the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6,078 (0.5% faster), the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 (0.5% slower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6,001 (0.8% slower). The Radeon R7 M260X, by contrast, competes with older mobile parts: the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5,154 (0.1% slower), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5,211 (1% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5,236 (1.4% faster), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5,063 (1.9% slower).

The per-test results reinforce this hierarchy. The Quadro P2000 shows strong scores across legacy DirectX tests: 124 in Passmark DirectX 9, 47 in DirectX 11, 34 in DirectX 10, and 28 in DirectX 12. It also records 626 in Passmark G2D and 6,956 in Passmark G3D, with a compute score of 2,933. The Radeon R7 M260X has no recorded scores for any of these tests in the database, so direct comparisons are limited to the two Geekbench entries. Still, the available data makes the overall picture clear: the Quadro P2000 is the stronger part by a substantial margin in every measurable category.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the Opal chip based on GCN 1.0, also made by TSMC but on an older 28 nm node. It contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The manufacturing advantage is clear: the Pascal part crams nearly 4.6 times more transistors into roughly 2.6 times the die area.

The memory subsystems are also very different. The Quadro P2000 ships with 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M260X has just 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, capping out at 64.00 GB/s. That is less than half the bandwidth of the NVIDIA card, which will matter in any texture-heavy or bandwidth-sensitive workload.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units. The Radeon R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also runs at higher clocks: 1,076 MHz base and 1,480 MHz boost, versus 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost for the AMD chip. The memory clock is similarly lopsided: 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the Quadro P2000 versus 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the Radeon.

These differences translate directly into throughput figures. The Quadro P2000 achieves 59.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 94.72 GTexel/s texture rate, with 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Radeon R7 M260X manages 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s, with 549.1 GFLOPS of FP32. That is a 10.3x gap in pixel rate, a 5.5x gap in texture rate, and a 5.5x gap in raw FP32 performance. The Quadro P2000 also supports FP16 at 47.36 GFLOPS (at 1:64 ratio), while the Radeon lists no FP16 capability at all.

Feature support also differs. The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer Vulkan version on the NVIDIA part is consistent with its much higher Vulkan benchmark score. The Quadro P2000 also has a wider bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Radeon. Display outputs are another differentiator: the Quadro P2000 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a connections, while the Radeon is described as "portable device dependent," meaning its outputs vary by laptop implementation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 versus 5,690 for the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, a 253.7% difference in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The Quadro P2000 records 23,566 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon R7 M260X scores 4,631. That is a 408.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M260X has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The Quadro P2000 contains 4,400 million transistors on a 16 nm TSMC process, while the Radeon R7 M260X has 950 million transistors on a 28 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA chip also has a higher transistor density: 22.0M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm².

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part has a newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The Quadro P2000 averages 6,049 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 35th percentile. The Radeon R7 M260X averages 5,161, placing it in the 30th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip on a 16 nm process, while the Radeon R7 M260X uses Opal on 28 nm. Transistor counts are 4,400 million versus 950 million, and die sizes are 200 mm² versus 77 mm². Transistor density stands at 22.0M / mm² for NVIDIA and 12.3M / mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds are far apart: the Quadro P2000 runs at 1,076 MHz base and 1,480 MHz boost, while the Radeon R7 M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 5 GB versus 1 GB, bus width is 160-bit versus 128-bit, and bandwidth is 140.2 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.

The compute pipeline differs substantially: 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs for NVIDIA, versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for AMD. Pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 3.031 TFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS. The Quadro P2000 lists FP16 at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Radeon has no FP16 entry.

Power and physical specs also differ. The Quadro P2000 is rated at 75 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. It measures 196 mm (7.7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The Radeon R7 M260X has no listed TDP, slot width, dimensions, or suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA and PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD. Display outputs are four DisplayPort 1.4a ports versus "portable device dependent." Release dates are also different: the Quadro P2000 launched in February 2017, while the Radeon R7 M260X launched in December 2015.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for any workload that appears in these benchmarks. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 beats the AMD Radeon R7 M260X by 253.7% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 408.9% in Geekbench Vulkan. It has more than four times the memory, more than twice the bandwidth, and nearly six times the FP32 compute throughput. Its newer architecture, smaller process node, and higher transistor density all contribute to this result.

The Radeon R7 M260X is not without context. Its average score of 5,161 places it near the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5,154) and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5,063), meaning it performs in line with other low-end parts from its era. But against the Quadro P2000, which sits closer to the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and RTX A400, it is simply outclassed.

For users who need a discrete GPU with modern API support, higher memory capacity, and substantially better compute performance, the Quadro P2000 is the appropriate choice based on the recorded measurements. The Radeon R7 M260X may be acceptable for legacy applications or light duties, but the benchmark data shows no scenario where it outperforms the NVIDIA part. The verdict is straightforward: pick the Quadro P2000 unless the workload is so old or so limited that the Radeon's lower specifications are sufficient. The numbers do not support any other conclusion.