AMD Radeon RX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents a starkly one-sided comparison. The AMD Radeon RX 560 claims the sole head-to-head victory in the shared workload, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D records no wins in any directly comparable test. The only overlapping benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, is won by the RX 560 with a delta of 319.1% over the Quadro 2000D. This is not a close contest; the performance gap is so wide that the Quadro 2000D appears effectively outclassed in any compute-oriented task that leverages OpenCL.

However, the use-case split is less about raw speed and more about what each card was designed to do. The RX 560, with its broader benchmark suite, shows strength across a range of legacy DirectX tests and compute workloads. It scores 57 in Passmark DirectX 9, 25 in DirectX 11, and 21 in DirectX 12. The Quadro 2000D has no recorded scores in any DirectX test, so its capabilities in those legacy APIs are entirely undocumented in the database. For users running older DirectX titles, the RX 560 at least has measurable data; the Quadro 2000D offers none.

The Quadro 2000D's only recorded benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL at 3930. In that single test, it lands at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs. The RX 560, by comparison, sits at the 26th percentile, a modest but meaningful difference in overall standing. The RX 560 also carries a full Passmark G3D score of 3671 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 1437, giving it a documented presence in both rasterization and compute. The Quadro 2000D has no such entries.

In terms of production status, both cards are end-of-life, so neither is a forward-looking purchase. The RX 560 belongs to the Polaris family with a 2017 release, while the Quadro 2000D dates to 2011. The data implies the RX 560 is the only viable option for any modern workload, simply because the Quadro 2000D lacks recorded performance in most categories. The Quadro 2000D's niche would have been professional workstation use, but the database shows it trailing even low-end consumer parts in its own nearest rival list, sitting just above the NVIDIA GeForce 830M with a 0.7% margin.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The AMD Radeon RX 560 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Polaris 21 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D uses the Fermi architecture, featuring the GF106 chip, on a 40 nm process from TSMC. The process node difference alone, 14 nm versus 40 nm, explains a substantial portion of the performance and efficiency gap.

Transistor counts reinforce this divide. The RX 560 packs 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 2000D has 1,170 million transistors spread across a 238 mm² die, for a density of just 4.9 million per square millimeter. The RX 560 is not only more densely packed but also physically smaller, which is remarkable given its far higher transistor count. The Quadro 2000D's larger die with fewer transistors reflects its older, less efficient Fermi design.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The RX 560 features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D has 1 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but only 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 2.7x difference in bandwidth, directly tied to the memory clock: 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) on the RX 560 versus 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) on the Quadro 2000D. The Quadro 2000D also lacks any boost clock data, with both base and boost clocks listed as null, whereas the RX 560 runs at 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost.

Compute resources are similarly lopsided. The RX 560 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 560 delivers 2.611 TFLOPS of FP32 performance; the Quadro 2000D manages 480.0 GFLOPS. Pixel rate is 20.40 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 81.60 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. The RX 560 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro 2000D has no FP16 data. API support differs as well: the RX 560 lists DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3; the Quadro 2000D lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the only directly comparable benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 16472, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D's 3930, a delta of 319.1%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall GPU percentile ranking?

A: The RX 560 sits at the 26th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000D sits at the 23rd percentile.

Q: Do both cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro 2000D supports only DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life products in the database.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The RX 560 delivers 2.611 TFLOPS, whereas the Quadro 2000D delivers 480.0 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification, from process node to memory bandwidth to physical dimensions. The RX 560 uses a 14 nm process, the Quadro 2000D a 40 nm process. The RX 560 has 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die; the Quadro 2000D has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. Transistor density is 24.4 million per square millimeter versus 4.9 million per square millimeter.

Clock speeds show a similar gap. The RX 560 has a base clock of 1175 MHz and a boost clock of 1275 MHz. The Quadro 2000D has no recorded base or boost clock. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the RX 560 and 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 2000D. Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 1 GB, both GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth is 112.0 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s.

Shading units number 1024 versus 192, TMUs 64 versus 32, and ROPs are equal at 16. Pixel rate is 20.40 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 81.60 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 2.611 TFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS. FP16 is 2.611 TFLOPS on the RX 560, with no FP16 data for the Quadro 2000D.

Power and physical design also differ. The RX 560 has a TDP of 75 W and is dual-slot; the Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W and is single-slot. Neither requires external power connectors, and both suggest a 250 W PSU. The RX 560 uses PCIe 3.0 x8; the Quadro 2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 560, versus 2x DVI for the Quadro 2000D. The RX 560 is 170 mm long; the Quadro 2000D is 178 mm long and 111 mm tall.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 16472, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. That is a delta of 319.1%, meaning the RX 560 is more than four times faster in this compute workload. No other benchmark is shared between the two cards, so this single result must carry the weight of the comparison.

The RX 560's broader benchmark profile offers additional context. It scores 18941 in Geekbench Metal, 3671 in Passmark G3D, 1437 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 485 in Passmark G2D. Its legacy DirectX scores are 57 in DirectX 9, 25 in DirectX 11, 21 in DirectX 12, and 16 in DirectX 10. The Quadro 2000D has none of these entries, so the database cannot confirm any DirectX performance for it. The average benchmark score for the RX 560 is 4569; for the Quadro 2000D, it is 3930.

The nearest rivals for the RX 560 include the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (a 1.1% gap) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628 (a 1.3% gap). The Quadro 2000D, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D at 3919 (0.3% gap) and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957 (0.7% gap). The RX 560's nearest rivals are substantially faster in absolute terms than the Quadro 2000D's nearest rivals, which further underscores the generational chasm between the two cards.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 560 is the superior GPU in every recorded category. It wins the only shared benchmark by 319.1%, holds a higher percentile ranking (26th versus 23rd), offers four times the memory capacity, and delivers nearly 5.5 times the FP32 compute throughput. The Quadro 2000D's sole advantage is its lower TDP of 62 W versus 75 W, a difference of 13 W, and its single-slot form factor versus the RX 560's dual-slot design. Neither of these advantages compensates for the massive performance deficit.

For users seeking a card with documented DirectX performance, the RX 560 is the only option, as the Quadro 2000D has no recorded DirectX scores. For users requiring Vulkan support, the RX 560 is again the only choice, as the Quadro 2000D lists none. For users with legacy professional software that relies on OpenCL, the RX 560's 16472 score versus 3930 makes it the clear pick. The Quadro 2000D's historical role as a professional workstation card is not reflected in the recorded data, which shows it trailing even low-end mobile parts like the GeForce 830M.

The Quadro 2000D remains a curiosity: a Fermi-era professional card with a 599 USD launch MSRP, compared to the RX 560's 99 USD launch MSRP. The price difference, taken together with the performance gap, suggests the Quadro 2000D was never a competitive product in raw throughput terms. The RX 560, despite being a consumer card, outperforms it so thoroughly that the Quadro 2000D's only remaining utility would be in niche legacy systems requiring its specific dual-DVI output configuration and single-slot footprint. The verdict, strictly from the data, is that the RX 560 wins on nearly every axis that matters for modern workloads.