AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two GPUs, with the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT taking every head-to-head win. In the two directly comparable tests, the RX 7800 XT wins both, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has no recorded victories in the shared benchmark suite. That said, the two cards occupy entirely different performance tiers, so the more useful interpretation is not "which is faster" but "which is relevant to what workload."

The RX 7800 XT dominates in compute-oriented and graphics API performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,290 is 81.9% ahead of the Quadro M2000M's 10,057, and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 54,228 versus 9,606 represents a 464.5% advantage. These are not marginal gaps; they are generational and architectural chasms. For any task that leverages OpenCL compute, modern game engines, or Vulkan rendering, the RX 7800 XT is the only sensible choice from this pair.

The Quadro M2000M, by contrast, has no benchmark category where it outperforms the RX 7800 XT. Its only recorded scores are the two Geekbench tests, both of which it loses decisively. The card sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RX 7800 XT sits at the 51st percentile. That percentile difference looks small, but the average benchmark scores tell a different story: the RX 7800 XT averages 11,627 across its full benchmark suite, while the Quadro M2000M averages 9,832 across its two tests. Even accounting for different test sets, the RX 7800 XT holds a clear lead.

For a builder deciding between these two, the use-case split is stark. The RX 7800 XT is a desktop gaming and workstation card with modern API support and high compute throughput. The Quadro M2000M is an end-of-life mobile workstation GPU from 2015, designed for laptops and portable devices, with no current production status. If the workload is modern gaming, GPU compute, or Vulkan-based rendering, the RX 7800 XT wins outright. If the requirement is a legacy mobile workstation GPU for an older laptop, the Quadro M2000M is the only one that fits that form factor, but it does not win a single recorded benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is massive, reflecting roughly eight years of development. The RX 7800 XT uses AMD's RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with a chip codenamed Navi 32, and the internal codename "Wheat Nas." It belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. The Quadro M2000M uses NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, with a GM107 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. The process node difference alone, 5 nm versus 28 nm, explains much of the efficiency and density gap.

Transistor counts show the scale difference. The RX 7800 XT packs 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm². The Quadro M2000M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6 million per mm². That is roughly 15 times the transistor count and more than six times the density on the AMD side. The RX 7800 XT also uses a larger die overall, 346 mm² versus 148 mm².

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The RX 7800 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s and memory clocks at 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s and memory clocks at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). That is a fourfold capacity advantage and nearly eightfold bandwidth advantage for the RX 7800 XT.

Compute resources are equally lopsided. The RX 7800 XT has 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, and 60 ray tracing cores. The Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores at all. Pixel rate is 233.3 GPixel/s versus 18.19 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 583.2 GTexel/s versus 45.48 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 37.32 TFLOPS versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS, a factor of roughly 25. The RX 7800 XT also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (37.32 TFLOPS), while the Quadro M2000M has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support also diverges. The RX 7800 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro M2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level difference is significant: 12_2 versus 11_0 means the RX 7800 XT supports modern ray tracing and mesh shaders, while the Quadro M2000M is limited to older DX12 feature sets.

Power and physical design are in different categories entirely. The RX 7800 XT has a TDP of 263 W, is dual-slot, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. It is 267 mm long, 111 mm high, and 50 mm wide, using a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. The Quadro M2000M is an MXM module with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no recorded dimensions. It uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and its display outputs are portable device dependent.

Production status differs too: the RX 7800 XT is active, while the Quadro M2000M is end-of-life. The RX 7800 XT's predecessor is Navi II and its successor is Navi IV; the Quadro M2000M's predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two directly comparable benchmark results for these GPUs, both from Geekbench. The first is Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 7800 XT scores 18,290, while the Quadro M2000M scores 10,057. The RX 7800 XT wins by 81.9%. This is a compute-heavy workload that stresses raw shader throughput, memory bandwidth, and driver efficiency. The RX 7800 XT's 3,840 shading units and 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth simply overwhelm the Quadro M2000M's 640 shading units and 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth.

The second is Geekbench Vulkan. Here the gap widens dramatically. The RX 7800 XT scores 54,228, while the Quadro M2000M scores 9,606. The RX 7800 XT wins by 464.5%. Vulkan is a low-overhead, modern graphics API, and the RX 7800 XT's RDNA 3.0 architecture with 60 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support is built for it. The Quadro M2000M, with its Maxwell architecture from 2015 and no ray tracing hardware, is not. A 464.5% lead in Vulkan means the RX 7800 XT is not just faster, it is in a different performance universe for that API.

Outside the head-to-head tests, the broader benchmark suites reinforce the picture. The RX 7800 XT has ten recorded benchmarks, including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 4,157, Passmark G3D with 24,176, Passmark GPU Compute with 13,473, and various DirectX legacy tests. The Quadro M2000M has only the two Geekbench scores. Average benchmark scores are 11,627 for the RX 7800 XT and 9,832 for the Quadro M2000M.

The nearest rivals in the database put these scores in context. The RX 7800 XT's average score of 11,627 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660's 11,680 (only 0.5% behind), and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M's 11,528 (0.9% ahead). The Quadro M2000M's average of 9,832 is nearly tied with the NVIDIA Quadro 6000's 9,846 (0.1% behind) and the AMD FirePro W5000's 9,803 (0.3% ahead). In other words, the RX 7800 XT competes with mid-range desktop GPUs from the same era, while the Quadro M2000M competes with decade-old workstation cards.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT faster than the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M in every benchmark?

A: Yes. The RX 7800 XT wins both head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL by 81.9% and Geekbench Vulkan by 464.5%. The Quadro M2000M has no recorded wins against the RX 7800 XT.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 7800 XT scores 54,228 versus 9,606 for the Quadro M2000M, a 464.5% difference.

Q: Can the Quadro M2000M handle modern games?

A: The data does not support that. It has no ray tracing cores, supports only DirectX 12 (11_0) rather than 12 Ultimate, and its Vulkan score of 9,606 is a tiny fraction of the RX 7800 XT's 54,228.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The RX 7800 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Is the Quadro M2000M still in production?

A: No. The database lists it as end-of-life, with a release date of 2015-12-02. The RX 7800 XT is listed as active, with a release date of 2023-09-05.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7800 XT's average score of 11,627 is 0.5% behind the GeForce GTX 1660 and 0.9% ahead of the Radeon Pro 5500M. The Quadro M2000M's average of 9,832 is 0.1% behind the Quadro 6000 and 0.3% ahead of the FirePro W5000.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 5 nm for the RX 7800 XT versus 28 nm for the Quadro M2000M. Transistors: 28,100 million versus 1,870 million. Die size: 346 mm² versus 148 mm². Transistor density: 81.2M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Clocks differ substantially. The RX 7800 XT has a base clock of 1295 MHz, boost of 2430 MHz, and game clock of 2124 MHz, with memory at 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). The Quadro M2000M has a base clock of 1098 MHz and boost of 1137 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The RX 7800 XT has no game clock field, and the Quadro M2000M has no game clock at all.

Memory: 16 GB GDDR6 versus 4 GB GDDR5. Bus width: 256-bit versus 128-bit. Bandwidth: 624.1 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. Shading units: 3,840 versus 640. TMUs: 240 versus 40. ROPs: 96 versus 16. RT cores: 60 versus none. Pixel rate: 233.3 GPixel/s versus 18.19 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 583.2 GTexel/s versus 45.48 GTexel/s. FP32: 37.32 TFLOPS versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS. FP16: 37.32 TFLOPS (1:1) versus no recorded value.

Power and physical specs: TDP of 263 W versus 55 W. Slot width: dual-slot versus MXM Module. Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 600 W versus none. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 versus portable device dependent. Dimensions: 267 mm x 111 mm x 50 mm for the RX 7800 XT, no recorded dimensions for the Quadro M2000M.

API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Production status: active versus end-of-life. Release date: 2023-09-05 versus 2015-12-02. Predecessor: Navi II versus Quadro Kepler-M. Successor: Navi IV versus Quadro Pascal-M.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is the superior GPU in every recorded metric. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (11,627 versus 9,832), sits at a higher percentile (51st versus 47th), and offers massively more compute, memory, and bandwidth. The Quadro M2000M has no recorded advantage anywhere.

Who should pick the RX 7800 XT? Anyone building a desktop system for gaming, Vulkan development, OpenCL compute, or modern workstation tasks. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, has 60 ray tracing cores, 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, and a 624.1 GB/s memory bus. Its 37.32 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 37.32 TFLOPS of FP16 performance make it suitable for compute-heavy workloads. The 464.5% lead in Vulkan is particularly telling: this is a card built for modern graphics APIs.

Who should pick the Quadro M2000M? Only someone who specifically needs an MXM module for a legacy laptop or portable device. It is end-of-life, uses a 28 nm process, has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, and no ray tracing support. Its 55 W TDP and MXM-A (3.0) interface make it the only option in this pair for that niche form factor. But from a pure performance standpoint, the RX 7800 XT is ahead by every recorded measure, and the Quadro M2000M's nearest rivals are cards like the Quadro 6000 and FirePro W5000, not modern GPUs. If the workload fits a desktop, the RX 7800 XT is the only rational choice.