AMD Radeon RX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 560 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 occupy opposite ends of the GPU timeline: a Polaris-based consumer card from 2017-04-17 set against a Fermi-based professional card from 2010-12-23. Both are end-of-life products, but the database shows a decisive performance gap. The single head-to-head benchmark recorded, Geekbench OpenCL, puts the RX 560 at 16472 versus 3898 for the Quadro 2000, a 322.6 percent advantage for the AMD card. On raw compute throughput the comparison is not close, and every architectural metric in the database explains why. This analysis walks through the verdict, the silicon-level differences, the use cases where each card still makes sense, and the exact numbers behind the result.

The Verdict

The data points one way. Anyone choosing between these two cards for compute or graphics work should pick the RX 560, full stop. Its average benchmark score of 4569 sits well above the Quadro 2000's 3898, and the only directly comparable test result, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a 322.6 percent margin in AMD's favor. The RX 560 delivers 2.611 TFLOPS of FP32 against 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro, more than five times the raw throughput.

The Quadro 2000's case rests on narrow, qualitative factors rather than measured performance. It is a single-slot card drawing 62 W, marginally leaner than the RX 560's dual-slot 75 W envelope, and it was designed as a professional workstation part in the Quadro Fermi line. The database records no Vulkan support on the Quadro and only DirectX 12 at the 11_0 feature level, versus full 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3 on the RX 560. For any modern API-driven workload, the Quadro cannot follow. Buyers needing a low-profile single-slot card for legacy professional drivers might still consider it, but the recorded data offers no benchmark basis for choosing it over the RX 560.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by roughly six and a half years of silicon development and three process-node generations. The Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip on TSMC's 40 nm process, packing 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, for a density of 4.9M transistors per mm². The RX 560 uses the Polaris 21 chip built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process, fitting 3,000 million transistors into just 123 mm². That works out to 24.4M transistors per mm², roughly five times the density, in a die nearly half the physical area.

The architectural gap is equally stark. The RX 560's GCN 4.0 design fields 1024 shading units and 64 texture mapping units, against 192 shading units and 32 TMUs on the Fermi-based Quadro. Raster output units are tied at 16 each, but throughput diverges sharply: the RX 560 pushes 20.40 GPixel/s and 81.60 GTexel/s, while the Quadro manages 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s. Clocking tells part of the story, since the RX 560 runs a 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost, while the Quadro's core clock fields are not even populated in the database, consistent with an older part without modern boost behavior.

Memory is another divide. Both use GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, but the RX 560 pairs 4 GB running at an effective 7 Gbps for 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro carries only 1024 MB at an effective 2.6 Gbps, yielding 41.60 GB/s. A one-gigabyte frame buffer severely limits modern workloads regardless of compute capability.

Feature support follows the same pattern. The RX 560 reports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, and includes FP16 throughput at 2.611 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The Quadro 2000 lists DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0, OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support at all; its FP16 capability is unrecorded. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores. Bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 3.0 x8 on the RX 560 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 on the Quadro. Display outputs split between the RX 560's DVI, HDMI 2.0b, and DisplayPort 1.4a and the Quadro's DVI plus two DisplayPorts. Physically, the RX 560 measures 170 mm long in a dual-slot cooler; the Quadro is 178 mm long, 111 mm tall, and single-slot. Neither requires a power connector, and both carry a suggested PSU of 250 W. Launch MSRP was 599 USD for the Quadro 2000 and 99 USD for the RX 560.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 560 wins every measured category in the database. That is not an exaggeration: winsA is 1 and winsB is 0, and the single shared benchmark lands 322.6 percent in AMD's favor. Its benchmark sheet spans Geekbench Metal at 18941, Geekbench OpenCL at 16472, PassMark G3D at 3671, PassMark GPU Compute at 1437, PassMark G2D at 485, and PassMark DirectX results of 16 for DX10, 25 for DX11, 21 for DX12, and 57 for DX9. The Quadro 2000's only recorded score is its 3898 Geekbench OpenCL result.

Contextual placement still favors the RX 560. It sits at the 26th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, against the 23rd percentile for the Quadro. Its nearest rivals by average score are the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (-0.2 percent), the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (+0.2 percent), the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (-1.1 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628 (-1.3 percent). In other words, the RX 560 trades blows with a mobile Maxwell gaming part and a professional mobile card, which is respectable company for a card in this percentile band.

The Quadro's rivals frame it differently. Its average score of 3898 sits within 0.4 percent of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, 0.5 percent behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, 0.8 percent behind the Quadro 2000D, and 1.4 percent behind the GeForce GT 745M. These are close-quarter comparisons among entry-level and integrated-class parts, confirming that the Quadro 2000's performance tier is effectively integrated-graphics territory by the database's measures.

Where the Quadro retains a qualitative edge is form factor and power footprint: 62 W TDP, single-slot, and no power connector, with a slightly shorter slot occupation than the dual-slot RX 560. For legacy workstation systems where a single-slot professional card is a hard requirement, that matters more than any benchmark. But in measured performance there is no use case in the recorded data where the Quadro 2000 wins.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall?

A: The RX 560. The single head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows 16472 versus 3898, a 322.6 percent advantage for the RX 560, and its average benchmark score of 4569 also exceeds the Quadro's 3898.

Q: How do their compute capabilities compare?

A: The RX 560 delivers 2.611 TFLOPS of FP32 versus 480.0 GFLOPS on the Quadro 2000. The RX 560 also reports FP16 at 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro's FP16 figure is not recorded.

Q: Which card has the better feature and API support?

A: The RX 560 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0, OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan.

Q: Do these cards need additional power connectors?

A: No. Both list no power connectors, both draw within a similar envelope (75 W TDP for the RX 560, 62 W for the Quadro), and both specify a suggested 250 W PSU.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The RX 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth on a 128 bit bus. The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 with 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, also on a 128 bit bus.

Q: Where does each card rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: The RX 560 sits at the 26th percentile; the Quadro 2000 sits at the 23rd percentile. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one benchmark appears in both cards' recorded results, and it is a rout. Geekbench OpenCL scores the Radeon RX 560 at 16472 and the Quadro 2000 at 3898, a delta of 322.6 percent in AMD's favor. OpenCL measures general-purpose GPU compute, and the result aligns precisely with the raw specification gap: 1024 shading units versus 192, 81.60 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s, and 112.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 41.60 GB/s.

The deeper benchmark record belongs to the RX 560 alone. Its Geekbench Metal score of 18941 stands as its strongest recorded result, and its PassMark G3D score of 3671 anchors the graphics ranking. PassMark GPU Compute lands at 1437, with G2D at 485. The DirectX-generation scores, 57 for DX9, 16 for DX10, 25 for DX11, and 21 for DX12, show how the card scales across API generations in that suite. The Quadro 2000 has no corresponding entries, so no per-API comparison is possible.

The rival data reinforces the gap from both directions. The RX 560 performs within 1.3 percent of the GeForce GTX 970M and 1.1 percent of the Quadro M3000M on average score, while the Quadro 2000 clusters with the Radeon R5 Graphics, the Quadro K2000D, the Quadro 2000D, and the GT 745M inside a 1.4 percent band. Two adjacent tiers of the database, separated by one decisive benchmark and a fivefold compute advantage: that is the shape of this matchup. For any workload the database measures, the RX 560 is the clear choice; the Quadro 2000 survives only as a single-slot, lower-draw legacy option where measured performance is not the priority.