AMD Radeon RX 9060 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 9060 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is a generational mismatch on paper, but the benchmark data quantifies just how wide the gap has become. The RX 9060, built on RDNA 4.0, absolutely dominates the Maxwell-based Quadro in every measurable test, with the average benchmark score of 16014 versus 14532 for the M2000. This is not a close contest, and the data shows the RX 9060 sits in the 59th percentile of all GPUs while the Quadro M2000 sits at the 56th percentile, but those percentiles obscure the fact that the RX 9060 is over 10% faster on average, with individual tests showing far larger deltas.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmark results show a landslide victory for the AMD Radeon RX 9060. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 9060 scores 88183, which is 504.5% higher than the Quadro M2000’s 14588. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a six-fold leap in compute throughput. The OpenCL test is particularly relevant for professional workloads like rendering and physics simulation, so this delta means the RX 9060 completes such tasks in a fraction of the time.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly smaller margin. The RX 9060 scores 39476, beating the Quadro M2000’s 14475 by 172.7%. This is still a massive advantage, and it indicates that the RX 9060 handles modern graphics APIs far more efficiently than the older Maxwell architecture, which was designed before Vulkan matured.

Beyond the direct comparisons, the RX 9060 has a broader benchmark suite that shows its strengths. In Passmark G3D, it scores 17631, while the Quadro M2000 has no comparable score listed, but the RX 9060’s Passmark GPU Compute score of 9919 indicates robust general-purpose compute performance. The RX 9060 also posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 88183, which is consistent with its head-to-head result, and a Passmark DirectX 12 score of 44, which is low relative to its other tests but still functional. The Quadro M2000’s only other benchmarks are the two Geekbench tests, so there is no data on its DirectX or Passmark performance, leaving the RX 9060 as the clear winner in every category where both are measured.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous. The RX 9060 uses the Navi 44 chip built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 29,700 million transistors packed into a 199 mm² die. The Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC, but with only 2,940 million transistors on a larger 228 mm² die. This means the RX 9060 has a transistor density of 149.2M per mm², while the Quadro M2000 has just 12.9M per mm² — a 10-fold difference in density that explains the performance gulf.

Clock speeds further separate the two. The RX 9060 runs at a base clock of 1700 MHz and boosts to 2990 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz. The Quadro M2000 is locked to a 796 MHz base and 1163 MHz boost. The RX 9060’s memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the Quadro M2000’s memory runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). This results in the RX 9060 delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 105.8 GB/s for the M2000.

The compute units tell the same story. The RX 9060 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores, enabling 21.43 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Quadro M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no RT cores, delivering just 1.786 TFLOPS of FP32. The RX 9060 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M2000 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1), and the RX 9060 adds Vulkan 1.4 support that matches the M2000, but with far higher throughput. The RX 9060 is also built on the PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro M2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which affects data transfer speeds to the CPU.

Where Each One Wins

There is no benchmark category where the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins. The data shows zero wins for the M2000 across all head-to-head tests. The RX 9060 wins 2 out of 2 direct comparisons, and its additional benchmark scores only reinforce its dominance. For gaming, the RX 9060’s DirectX 12 and Vulkan scores, while not stellar in Passmark, are far ahead of anything the M2000 can offer, and the RT cores provide hardware ray tracing that the M2000 lacks entirely.

For professional workloads, the RX 9060’s OpenCL performance is the standout. A 504.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL means tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific compute will run multiple times faster on the RX 9060. The Quadro M2000’s only potential advantage is its 75 W TDP and single-slot design, which make it easier to fit into compact or legacy systems, but that is a physical attribute, not a performance win. In any scenario where raw compute or modern API support matters, the RX 9060 is the only choice.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 than the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 in OpenCL?

A: The RX 9060 scores 88183 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 504.5% higher than the Quadro M2000’s 14588.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000 have any ray tracing capabilities?

A: No. The Quadro M2000 has no RT cores listed, while the RX 9060 has 28 RT cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 9060 has 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro M2000 has 105.8 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 9060 has a density of 149.2M transistors per mm² on a 199 mm² die, while the Quadro M2000 has 12.9M per mm² on a 228 mm² die.

Q: Can the Quadro M2000 run Vulkan applications?

A: Yes, it supports Vulkan 1.4, but its Geekbench Vulkan score of 14475 is 172.7% lower than the RX 9060’s 39476.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014, while the Quadro M2000 has an average of 14532.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet highlights the generational leap. The RX 9060 uses a 4 nm process node versus the M2000’s 28 nm. The RX 9060 has 29,700 million transistors, compared to 2,940 million for the M2000, and a die size of 199 mm² versus 228 mm². The RX 9060’s base clock is 1700 MHz with a boost of 2990 MHz, while the M2000 sits at 796 MHz base and 1163 MHz boost. Memory is 8 GB of GDDR6 on the RX 9060 versus 4 GB of GDDR5 on the M2000, with bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s.

The RX 9060 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 9060’s FP32 performance is 21.43 TFLOPS, against 1.786 TFLOPS for the M2000. The RX 9060 has a 132 W TDP and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector and 300 W PSU, while the M2000 has a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 250 W PSU suggestion. The RX 9060 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the M2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the RX 9060 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a, while the M2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The M2000 is a single-slot card at 201 mm length, while the RX 9060 is dual-slot. The RX 9060 is still in active production, while the M2000 is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the superior GPU in every benchmark category shared with the NVIDIA Quadro M2000, and it offers features like ray tracing and a modern process node that the M2000 cannot match. If you need raw compute performance, the RX 9060’s 504.5% lead in OpenCL makes it the only rational choice for any modern workload. The Quadro M2000’s only advantages are its lower 75 W TDP and single-slot form factor, but those do not compensate for a 172.7% deficit in Vulkan and a 10% gap in average benchmark score.

For a builder choosing between these two, the RX 9060 is the clear pick for gaming, content creation, or professional compute. The Quadro M2000 is a legacy part that should only be considered if you have a specific need for its low power draw or physical size, and even then, its performance ceiling is far below what the RX 9060 delivers. The benchmark results show no scenario where the M2000 wins, so the verdict is straightforward: choose the RX 9060.