AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture: the AMD Radeon Vega 3 emerges as the more capable option when measured against the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 in the only directly comparable benchmark. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Vega 3 scores 3963, edging out the Quadro 2000’s 3898 by a narrow 1.7% margin. This is a modest, but decisive, victory. The Vega 3 holds a 25th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000 sits at the 23rd percentile, reinforcing its slight edge in overall performance.

For a user selecting between these two end-of-life products, the choice hinges on context. The Vega 3 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for low-power, mobile or compact systems, drawing just 15 W. The Quadro 2000 is a single-slot, discrete workstation card with a 62 W TDP and a launch MSRP of 599 USD, requiring a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot. If the priority is raw compute in a modern, power-efficient platform, the Vega 3 is the logical pick based on the benchmark data. However, if the requirement is a dedicated, professional-grade card with its own dedicated memory and display outputs for a legacy workstation, the Quadro 2000 remains a functional, albeit older, choice. The data shows the Vega 3 wins the performance contest, but the Quadro 2000 offers a different form factor and feature set that may be relevant for specific use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is faster, scoring 3963 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000’s 3898, a 1.7% advantage.

Q: How does the Vega 3 compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The Vega 3’s average benchmark score is 4268. It is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282) and 0.6% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295), but 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241) and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335).

Q: Where does the Quadro 2000 stand relative to its direct competitors?

A: The Quadro 2000’s average benchmark score is 3898. It is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883), but 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919), 0.8% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930), and 1.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953).

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has a significantly higher TDP of 62 W. The Quadro 2000 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support similar modern APIs?

A: No. The Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the memory configurations for these two products?

A: The Vega 3 uses system-shared memory, with its size, type, and bus width all listed as "System Shared." The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is based on the GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It uses the Picasso chip and is part of the "Vega IGP (Picasso)" generation. This is a modern, integrated design. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is based on the Fermi architecture, built on a much older 40 nm process at TSMC. It uses the GF106 chip and belongs to the "Quadro Fermi (x000)" generation. This represents a significant generational gap in design philosophy and manufacturing technology.

The transistor counts reflect this difference. The Vega 3 integrates 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M / mm². The Quadro 2000, with its older process, packs only 1,170 million transistors into a larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 4.9M / mm². This shows the Vega 3’s manufacturing advantage, allowing for far more complexity in a similar physical footprint.

Both GPUs have the same number of shading units: 192. However, their other core configurations differ dramatically. The Vega 3 has 12 texture mapping units (TMUs) and only 4 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 2000 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This is a crucial architectural difference. The Quadro 2000 is designed with a much higher ratio of texture and pixel processing hardware relative to its shader count, a typical trait for a discrete workstation card focused on geometry and fill-rate-bound tasks. The Vega 3, with fewer TMUs and ROPs, is more balanced for its integrated role, where memory bandwidth and power are shared with the CPU.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Vega 3’s FP16 performance is listed as 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro 2000 has no FP16 data listed, indicating a lack of support or emphasis on half-precision compute. The Vega 3’s architecture is a clear descendant of AMD’s GCN line, while the Quadro 2000 represents NVIDIA’s Fermi-era design, which prioritized different workloads.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two products diverge on nearly every point, reflecting their different intended uses.

• Process Node: The Vega 3 is built on a 12 nm process, while the Quadro 2000 uses a 40 nm process.
• Core Clocks: The Vega 3 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Quadro 2000’s base and boost clocks are not listed. Its memory clock is 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective).
• Memory: The Vega 3 uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The Quadro 2000 features 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with a fixed 41.60 GB/s bandwidth.
• Texture and Pixel Rates: The Vega 3 has a pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 13.20 GTexel/s. The Quadro 2000 is faster in both, with a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The Vega 3 delivers 422.4 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 2000 delivers 480.0 GFLOPS.
• Power and Physical: The Vega 3 has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors or suggested PSU. The Quadro 2000 has a 62 W TDP, is a single-slot card, has no power connectors, but lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro 2000 has physical dimensions of 178 mm (7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height.
• Bus and Outputs: The Vega 3 uses an IGP bus interface with motherboard-dependent display outputs. The Quadro 2000 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs.
• API Support: The Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) but has no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6.
• Release Date: The Vega 3 was released on 2019-11-19, while the Quadro 2000 was released on 2010-12-23.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 3963, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898. This results in a 1.7% win for the Vega 3. While this is a narrow margin, it is consistent with their overall percentile rankings. The Vega 3’s average benchmark score across all tests is 4268, which places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro 2000’s average score is 3898, placing it in the 23rd percentile.

The Vega 3’s victory in OpenCL is notable given the specification differences. The Quadro 2000 has higher pixel and texture rates, and higher raw FP32 throughput, yet it still loses in this compute-oriented benchmark. This suggests the Vega 3’s newer GCN architecture, with its 2:1 FP16 support, offers better compute efficiency for OpenCL workloads. The Quadro 2000’s strength in fill-rate metrics (a 13.6% higher pixel rate and a 51.5% higher texture rate) does not translate to a win in this test.

It is important to note that the Quadro 2000 has no data for Geekbench Metal or Vulkan, while the Vega 3 has strong scores in both (4880 and 3961, respectively). This means the Quadro 2000 is not a contender in those modern API-based benchmarks. The head-to-head data shows a single, decisive win for the AMD part. The data shows the Vega 3 is the superior choice for compute tasks, despite the Quadro 2000’s advantages in traditional graphics throughput metrics. The Vega 3 wins the only direct contest, and its broader benchmark support suggests it is a more versatile product for modern software environments.