AMD Radeon RX 580 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and AMD Radeon RX 580 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they serve very different purposes. The Quadro M2000 is a professional workstation card built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the RX 580 is a consumer gaming card using AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear performance gap in compute workloads, but the decision between these two depends on the specific application, driver support, and physical requirements of the system.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data in the database covers two compute-oriented tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both cases, the AMD Radeon RX 580 wins decisively. For Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 580 scores 37,453, while the Quadro M2000 scores 14,588. The difference is expressed as a 61% deficit for the Quadro, meaning the RX 580 delivers roughly two and a half times the raw compute throughput in this workload. For Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is even larger: the RX 580 scores 45,173 against the Quadro’s 14,475, a 68% deficit for the NVIDIA card. The RX 580’s Vulkan score is over three times that of the Quadro.

These results are not close. The RX 580 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. The Quadro M2000 has no benchmark wins in the comparison data. This is consistent with the broader specification differences between the two cards: the RX 580 has three times the shading units, three times the texture mapping units, and over three times the FP32 throughput. The Quadro’s only advantage in the raw numbers is its smaller physical footprint and lower power draw, which the benchmark scores do not capture.

Looking at the average benchmark scores in the database, the Quadro M2000 averages 14,532 across its recorded tests, which places it in the 56th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M at 14,404 (0.9% slower), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 at 14,385 (1% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN at 14,373 (1.1% slower). The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT sits slightly ahead at 14,692, which is 1.1% faster than the Quadro. This places the Quadro in a tight cluster of mid-range GPUs, where small changes in driver optimization can shift the ranking.

The RX 580, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 12,928 across its much larger set of recorded tests. This places it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at 12,940 (0.1% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER at 12,986 (0.4% faster), and the AMD Radeon 740M at 12,870 (0.5% slower). The AMD FirePro W5100 is 0.6% slower at 12,847. The RX 580’s average score is dragged down by its inclusion of older DirectX and 2D tests, which do not favor modern compute workloads. The head-to-head tests, which use modern APIs, show a much larger advantage for the RX 580.

It is important to note that the average benchmark score and the head-to-head results tell different stories. The head-to-head tests are the most direct comparison because they run the same workload on both cards. The RX 580’s lead there is massive. The average scores, however, include tests that only one card participated in, which can distort the comparison. For the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 580’s 37,453 is far above the Quadro’s 14,588, and the Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar pattern. The RX 580 also has a Geekbench Metal score of 45,235, which the Quadro cannot run. The database’s win count reflects this: the RX 580 wins 2, the Quadro wins 0.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and fabrication processes. The Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip, which is part of NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die contains 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. The RX 580 uses the Polaris 20 chip, part of AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The RX 580 packs nearly twice the transistors into a similar die area, thanks to the denser process node.

The memory subsystems are also very different. The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1653 MHz and 6.6 Gbps effective speed. This yields a bandwidth of 105.8 GB/s. The RX 580 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a memory clock of 2000 MHz and 8 Gbps effective speed. This yields a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, which is more than double the Quadro’s. For any workload that is memory-bandwidth bound, the RX 580 has a substantial advantage.

The compute resources differ by a factor of three. The Quadro M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 580 has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FP32 performance is 1.786 TFLOPS for the Quadro and 6.175 TFLOPS for the RX 580. The RX 580 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, delivering 6.175 TFLOPS for half-precision workloads; the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability. Pixel rates are 37.22 GPixel/s for the Quadro and 42.88 GPixel/s for the RX 580. Texture rates are 55.82 GTexel/s for the Quadro and 193.0 GTexel/s for the RX 580.

Clock speeds are another point of divergence. The Quadro has a base clock of 796 MHz and a boost clock of 1163 MHz. The RX 580 has a base clock of 1257 MHz and a boost clock of 1340 MHz. The RX 580 runs at significantly higher clocks despite having far more compute units. Power consumption reflects this: the Quadro is rated at 75 W TDP, while the RX 580 is rated at 185 W TDP. The physical requirements are also different. The Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 580 is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W.

API support is similar but not identical. Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 580 supports Vulkan 1.3. The DirectX feature level differs: the Quadro is listed as DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 580 is listed as DirectX 12 (12_0). Display outputs differ as well. The Quadro has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The RX 580 has one HDMI 2.0b output and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Quadro is 201 mm long and 111 mm tall; the RX 580 is 241 mm long.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 580 wins every recorded compute benchmark in the comparison. For OpenCL workloads, it is 61% ahead of the Quadro. For Vulkan workloads, it is 68% ahead. This makes the RX 580 the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute, machine learning inference, or any application that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan for acceleration. Its larger memory capacity (8 GB versus 4 GB) and higher bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s) also make it better suited for large datasets that exceed the Quadro’s memory limit.

The Quadro M2000’s strengths are not visible in the benchmark scores, but they are visible in the specification data. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 75 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of only 250 W. This makes it suitable for systems where space and power are constrained. It also has four DisplayPort outputs, which is useful for multi-display professional setups. The Quadro’s Maxwell architecture and driver support for workstation applications might be preferable for specific professional software, although the benchmark data does not quantify this. The Quadro’s DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level is slightly higher than the RX 580’s DirectX 12 (12_0), which could matter for certain advanced rendering features.

The RX 580’s 8 GB of memory is a practical advantage for modern workloads. The Quadro’s 4 GB may be insufficient for large textures, high-resolution compute buffers, or machine learning models. The RX 580’s FP16 capability, at 6.175 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, is also a significant feature for workloads that can use half-precision arithmetic. The Quadro has no recorded FP16 performance.

For gaming, the RX 580 is the obvious choice based on the data. Its PassMark 3D score of 8,813 and DirectX 11 score of 60 indicate strong rasterization performance. The Quadro has no recorded gaming benchmarks in the database, so its gaming performance cannot be compared directly, but its much lower compute throughput and memory bandwidth suggest it would be slower.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 580 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. The RX 580’s OpenCL score is 61% higher, and its Vulkan score is 68% higher. For any user prioritizing raw compute performance, memory capacity, or memory bandwidth, the RX 580 is the correct choice. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 6.175 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it a far more capable card for modern workloads.

The Quadro M2000 should only be considered for systems where its physical characteristics are essential. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, which means it can fit into compact or legacy systems that cannot accommodate a dual-slot, 185 W card with an 8-pin connector. Its four DisplayPort outputs and 250 W suggested PSU also make it easier to integrate into certain professional environments. However, these advantages come at the cost of significantly lower performance. The Quadro’s average benchmark score of 14,532 places it in the 56th percentile, while the RX 580’s average of 12,928 is in the 53rd percentile, but the average scores include different test sets and should not be used to conclude that the Quadro is faster overall. The head-to-head data is the authoritative comparison, and it favors the RX 580 by a wide margin.

The RX 580’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (0.1% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (0.4% slower), and the AMD Radeon 740M (0.5% faster). This shows that the RX 580’s average score is competitive with much newer cards, despite its age. The Quadro’s nearest rivals are all older or lower-tier parts, which reflects its position as a low-end professional card. The RX 580, despite being end-of-life, remains a strong performer in its segment.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 580 scores 37,453, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14,588. The RX 580 is 61% faster.

Q: Which card wins the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 580 scores 45,173, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14,475. The RX 580 is 68% faster.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The RX 580 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro M2000 has a TDP of 75 W, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 580 has a TDP of 185 W, one 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The Quadro M2000 is a single-slot card measuring 201 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The RX 580 is a dual-slot card measuring 241 mm in length.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes. The Quadro M2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), and the RX 580 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The Quadro M2000 delivers 1.786 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The RX 580 delivers 6.175 TFLOPS, which is over three times higher.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards. The Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die. The RX 580 uses the Polaris 20 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. The base clock is 796 MHz for the Quadro and 1257 MHz for the RX 580. The boost clock is 1163 MHz for the Quadro and 1340 MHz for the RX 580. The memory clock is 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro and 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the RX 580.

Memory size is 4 GB for the Quadro and 8 GB for the RX 580. The memory bus is 128-bit for the Quadro and 256-bit for the RX 580. Memory bandwidth is 105.8 GB/s for the Quadro and 256.0 GB/s for the RX 580. Shading units number 768 for the Quadro and 2,304 for the RX 580. TMUs are 48 for the Quadro and 144 for the RX 580. ROPs are 32 for both. Pixel rate is 37.22 GPixel/s for the Quadro and 42.88 GPixel/s for the RX 580. Texture rate is 55.82 GTexel/s for the Quadro and 193.0 GTexel/s for the RX 580. FP32 is 1.786 TFLOPS for the Quadro and 6.175 TFLOPS for the RX 580. The RX 580 also has FP16 at 6.175 TFLOPS; the Quadro has none recorded.

TDP is 75 W for the Quadro and 185 W for the RX 580. The Quadro is single-slot with no power connectors; the RX 580 is dual-slot with one 8-pin connector. Suggested PSU is 250 W for the Quadro and 450 W for the RX 580. Display outputs are four DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro and one HDMI 2.0b plus three DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 580. Vulkan support is version 1.4 for the Quadro and 1.3 for the RX 580. DirectX feature level is 12_1 for the Quadro and 12_0 for the RX 580. The Quadro measures 201 mm by 111 mm; the RX 580 measures 241 mm in length. The RX 580 had a launch MSRP of 229 USD; the Quadro has no recorded launch MSRP.