AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT and NVIDIA Quadro M2000 occupy very different positions in the GPU landscape, and the benchmark data reflects that split. The RX 5700 XT is a Radeon RX 5000 series part built for high-throughput gaming and compute workloads, while the Quadro M2000 is a professional Maxwell-based card aimed at stable, low-power workstation output. Their recorded scores show a clear divergence in API-specific strengths, making the choice between them largely a matter of which application environment matters more.

Where Each One Wins

The most striking pattern in the recorded data is the complete reversal of fortunes between the two compute APIs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14588, while the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 9524. That is a 34.7% deficit for the AMD card, meaning the Quadro M2000 delivers a substantially higher OpenCL result despite its older architecture and much smaller silicon budget. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the Quadro M2000 is the clear winner in this matchup.

The opposite is true in Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 68310 against the Quadro M2000’s 14475. That is a 371.9% advantage for the RX 5700 XT, a massive margin that dwarfs the OpenCL gap. Vulkan workloads, which tend to stress modern driver overhead and high shader throughput, play directly into the RX 5700 XT’s strengths. The card’s 2560 shading units and 160 texture mapping units deliver raw parallel processing power that the Quadro M2000’s 768 shading units cannot match.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the broader benchmark suite paints a fuller picture. The RX 5700 XT has recorded scores across multiple DirectX versions and compute tests, including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2134, a Passmark G3D score of 16277, and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 7650. Its average benchmark score is 16361, placing it at the 59th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Quadro M2000, by contrast, only has two recorded benchmarks (the OpenCL and Vulkan tests above), with an average score of 14532 and a 56th percentile ranking. The RX 5700 XT is the higher-performing card overall, but the Quadro M2000 holds a specific niche where it wins outright.

For DirectX users, the RX 5700 XT shows consistent strength: Passmark DirectX 11 score of 116, DirectX 12 score of 64, DirectX 9 score of 226, and DirectX 10 score of 97. The Quadro M2000 has no recorded DirectX benchmark scores, so any comparison in that area relies solely on the OpenCL and Vulkan results. In practice, the RX 5700 XT is the pick for gaming, real-time graphics, or any workload that leverages Vulkan or DirectX APIs. The Quadro M2000 is the pick for OpenCL-centric compute tasks where its score advantage is real and measurable.

The Verdict

The data supports a simple decision rule. If the primary workload is Vulkan-based, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is overwhelmingly superior. Its 68310 Vulkan score is 371.9% higher than the Quadro M2000’s 14475, a gap that no other factor in the recorded data can bridge. Any modern game, VR application, or Vulkan-rendering tool will run dramatically faster on the RX 5700 XT. The card also has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the Quadro M2000’s 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 105.8 GB/s. That memory advantage alone would justify choosing the RX 5700 XT for texture-heavy or large-dataset workloads.

If the workload is OpenCL-centric, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins. Its 14588 OpenCL score beats the RX 5700 XT’s 9524 by 34.7%. This is notable because the Quadro M2000 is a 2016 card with a 28 nm process node, while the RX 5700 XT is a 2019 card on 7 nm. Despite the newer node and higher transistor count (10,300 million versus 2,940 million), the AMD card loses in OpenCL. That suggests the Quadro M2000’s Maxwell architecture has optimized OpenCL paths or that the RX 5700 XT’s OpenCL drivers are less efficient. For scientific computing, medical imaging, or legacy OpenCL-based pipelines, the Quadro M2000 is the safer choice based on the recorded scores.

The overall average benchmark score favors the RX 5700 XT (16361 versus 14532, a 12.6% difference), and its percentile rank is higher (59 versus 56). Users who need general-purpose performance across multiple APIs should pick the RX 5700 XT. Users who are locked into OpenCL and cannot migrate to Vulkan or DirectX should pick the Quadro M2000. There is no ambiguity: the two cards are not interchangeable, and the benchmark data makes that explicit.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two head-to-head tests in the database are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. They are the only tests where both cards have recorded scores, and they tell opposite stories.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14588, while the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 9524. The delta is -34.7% for the AMD card, meaning the Quadro M2000 outperforms it by roughly a third. This is a significant margin, especially considering the hardware differences. The Quadro M2000 has a 28 nm GM206 chip with 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die. The RX 5700 XT uses a 7 nm Navi 10 chip with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die. The AMD card has 3.5 times the transistors, but the OpenCL result shows that raw hardware does not translate directly to compute efficiency. The Quadro M2000’s 1.786 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is far lower than the RX 5700 XT’s 9.754 TFLOPS, yet the OpenCL score is higher. This points to driver maturity or architecture-specific OpenCL optimizations in Maxwell.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 68310, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14475. The delta is +371.9% for the AMD card, meaning it is nearly four times faster. This is the largest recorded margin in the comparison. Vulkan’s lower-level API benefits from the RX 5700 XT’s high shader count (2560 versus 768), higher texture rate (304.8 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s), and higher pixel rate (121.9 GPixel/s versus 37.22 GPixel/s). The memory bandwidth disparity also plays a role: 448.0 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s. The RX 5700 XT’s boost clock of 1905 MHz, compared to the Quadro M2000’s 1163 MHz, further amplifies the gap. There is no recorded scenario where the Quadro M2000 closes that Vulkan gap.

The wins are split 1-1 in the head-to-head section, but the magnitudes are not equal. The Quadro M2000’s OpenCL win is a 34.7% improvement, while the RX 5700 XT’s Vulkan win is a 371.9% improvement. In absolute score terms, the RX 5700 XT’s 68310 Vulkan score is 537.9% of the Quadro M2000’s 14475, while the Quadro M2000’s OpenCL score is 153.2% of the RX 5700 XT’s 9524. For users who care about total performance, the RX 5700 XT’s Vulkan dominance is the more decisive factor.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT has an average benchmark score of 16361, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has an average of 14532.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 win any benchmark against the RX 5700 XT?

A: Yes, in Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M2000 scores 14588 versus the RX 5700 XT’s 9524, a 34.7% advantage.

Q: How large is the RX 5700 XT’s Vulkan advantage?

A: The RX 5700 XT scores 68310 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 371.9% higher than the Quadro M2000’s 14475.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RX 5700 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 105.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher process node efficiency?

A: The RX 5700 XT is built on a 7 nm TSMC process, while the Quadro M2000 uses a 28 nm TSMC process. The RX 5700 XT has a transistor density of 41.0M per mm², versus 12.9M per mm² for the Quadro M2000.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT uses the Navi 10 chip with the RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm TSMC process. It packs 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 41.0M per mm². The card has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. Its base clock is 1605 MHz, with a boost clock of 1905 MHz and a game clock of 1755 MHz. The memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FP32 throughput is 9.754 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 19.51 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The RX 5700 XT is a dual-slot card that draws 225 W TDP, requires a 550 W suggested PSU, uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector, and connects via PCIe 4.0 x16. It outputs to one HDMI 2.0b and three DisplayPort 1.4a ports. The card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip with the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm TSMC process. It contains 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, with a transistor density of 12.9M per mm². The card has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. Its base clock is 796 MHz, with a boost clock of 1163 MHz. Memory runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, providing 105.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The FP32 throughput is 1.786 TFLOPS, and there is no recorded FP16 support. The Quadro M2000 is a single-slot card with a 75 W TDP, requires no external power connectors, and has a 250 W suggested PSU. It connects via PCIe 3.0 x16 and outputs to four DisplayPort 1.2 ports. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The architectural gap is stark. The RX 5700 XT has 3.5 times the transistor count, 3.3 times the shading units, 3.3 times the texture units, and twice the ROPs of the Quadro M2000. Its memory bandwidth is 4.2 times higher, and its FP32 throughput is 5.5 times higher. The node difference (7 nm versus 28 nm) explains part of this, as does the RDNA 1.0 design philosophy versus Maxwell 2.0. The RX 5700 XT also uses PCIe 4.0, doubling the bus bandwidth available to the Quadro M2000’s PCIe 3.0. Display outputs differ as well: the RX 5700 XT offers HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro M2000 only has DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro M2000’s single-slot, no-power-connector design makes it far easier to install in constrained chassis, but that form factor comes at the cost of raw performance. The recorded benchmarks show that the RX 5700 XT’s architectural advantages translate to a massive Vulkan win, while the Quadro M2000’s Maxwell architecture retains an OpenCL edge that defies its older specifications.