AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are both end-of-life parts, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies: one is a modern integrated graphics processor (IGP) built for efficiency, and the other is an older discrete workstation card built for specific professional tasks. Based strictly on benchmark data, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 edges out the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D in the only shared test, but the Quadro 2000D has its own distinct strengths in raw throughput metrics. The data indicates that the Vega 3 is the better all-round performer for general and modern workloads, while the Quadro 2000D is a specialized tool with a specific legacy feature set.

The Verdict — who should pick which, strictly from the data

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is the superior choice for any user prioritizing overall compute performance and modern API support. In the only head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the Vega 3 scores 3963 against the Quadro 2000D’s 3930, a 0.8% victory. This win, though narrow, is backed by a higher average benchmark score of 4268 versus 3930, placing the Vega 3 in the 25th percentile of all GPUs compared to the Quadro’s 23rd percentile. For users who need a GPU that can handle OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the Vega 3 is the clear pick, as it supports Vulkan 1.3 while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D should be selected only by those with a specific need for its dedicated memory and legacy display outputs. It offers 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 41.60 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Vega 3 relies on system-shared memory with dependent bandwidth. While the Quadro 2000D loses the single benchmark, it wins in pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s) and texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s vs 13.20 GTexel/s), making it potentially more responsive in certain fill-rate-limited scenarios. However, given its lower overall benchmark score and older architecture, the data strongly favors the Vega 3 for anyone not requiring the Quadro’s specific hardware characteristics.

Architecture Differences — node, cores, cache, features that differ

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is massive, driven by a near-decade difference in design philosophy. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is built on the GCN 5.0 architecture using a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries, packing 4,940 million transistors into a 210 mm² die. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with only 1,170 million transistors on a larger 238 mm² die. This translates to a transistor density of 23.5M per mm² for the Vega 3 versus just 4.9M per mm² for the Quadro, highlighting the immense efficiency gains in the newer part.

Both GPUs feature 192 shading units, but their supporting hardware differs dramatically. The Vega 3 has 12 texture mapping units (TMUs) and only 4 render output units (ROPs), while the Quadro 2000D has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This explains why the Quadro achieves higher pixel and texture rates despite being older. The Vega 3 compensates with a higher boost clock of 1100 MHz (base 300 MHz) and supports significant modern features, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro 2000D, with no listed boost clock and a memory clock of 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacks Vulkan support entirely. The Vega 3 also integrates FP16 support at 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1), a feature entirely absent from the Quadro.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks — walk through the biggest wins each way with exact numbers

The sole benchmark where both GPUs were tested head-to-head is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are extremely close. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 scored 3963, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scored 3930, giving the Vega 3 a 0.8% edge. This is a marginal win, but it is consistent with the broader benchmark picture. The Vega 3’s average benchmark score across all tests is 4268, which is 8.6% higher than the Quadro’s average of 3930. In the wider context, the Vega 3’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M with an average score of 4282, a delta of -0.3%, meaning the Vega 3 is effectively at parity with that older discrete GPU.

The Quadro 2000D’s best showing is in raw throughput metrics rather than compute benchmarks. It achieves a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s, which is 13.6% higher than the Vega 3’s 4.400 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s is 51.5% higher than the Vega 3’s 13.20 GTexel/s. However, these advantages do not translate into a higher FP32 performance: the Quadro produces 480.0 GFLOPS versus the Vega 3’s 422.4 GFLOPS, a 13.6% lead for the Quadro. Despite its raw throughput wins, the Quadro still loses in the actual OpenCL test, suggesting that the Vega 3’s newer architecture is more efficient at executing real-world compute workloads.

Specification Differences — only the fields where the two differ

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts in nearly every category. The process node differs fundamentally: the Vega 3 uses 12 nm versus the Quadro’s 40 nm. Transistor count is 4,940 million for AMD versus 1,170 million for NVIDIA. Die size is 210 mm² for the Vega 3 versus 238 mm² for the Quadro. The Vega 3’s base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 1100 MHz, while the Quadro lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). Memory configuration is entirely different: the Vega 3 uses System Shared memory with dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth.

The TMU and ROP counts differ: the Vega 3 has 12 TMUs and 4 ROPs, while the Quadro has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 4.400 GPixel/s for the Vega 3 versus 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro. Texture rate is 13.20 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 422.4 GFLOPS for the Vega 3 versus 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro. The Vega 3 supports FP16 at 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1); the Quadro has no FP16 support. TDP differs hugely: 15 W for the Vega 3 versus 62 W for the Quadro. The Vega 3 is an IGP with no power connectors, while the Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors but a suggested PSU of 250 W. The bus interface is IGP for the Vega 3 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the Vega 3 versus 2x DVI for the Quadro. API support shows the Vega 3 with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro has DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan. Release dates differ: 2019-11-19 for the Vega 3 versus 2011-10-04 for the Quadro. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. Physical dimensions for the Quadro are 178 mm (7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height; the Vega 3 has no listed dimensions.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has a higher average benchmark score of 4268, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D’s 3930, a difference of approximately 8.6%.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D support Vulkan?

A: No. The FACT PACK lists Vulkan as null for the Quadro 2000D, whereas the AMD Radeon Vega 3 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the difference in TDP between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, making the Vega 3 significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU has more texture mapping units (TMUs)?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has 32 TMUs, compared to the AMD Radeon Vega 3’s 12 TMUs. This leads to the Quadro’s higher texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s versus 13.20 GTexel/s.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D?

A: The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus width and 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 uses System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: In the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, what was the winning margin?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 won the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 3963 against the Quadro 2000D’s 3930, a margin of 0.8%.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 wins in areas of modern compute and efficiency. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL) with a 0.8% lead. It has a significantly lower TDP of 15 W versus 62 W, making it ideal for power-constrained systems. It supports modern APIs including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro lacks Vulkan and only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). The Vega 3 also has a higher average benchmark score (4268 vs 3930) and a higher percentile ranking (25th vs 23rd). Its FP16 support at 844.8 GFLOPS adds compute flexibility absent from the Quadro.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D wins in raw rasterization throughput and dedicated memory. It offers a higher pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s) and a substantially higher texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s vs 13.20 GTexel/s). It also has a higher FP32 compute rating of 480.0 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS for the Vega 3. The Quadro’s dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth is a clear advantage over the Vega 3’s shared memory, which relies on system bandwidth. Its dual DVI outputs are a specific legacy feature for older monitors, whereas the Vega 3’s outputs are motherboard dependent. The Quadro 2000D also has a higher ROP count (16 vs 4), contributing to its pixel rate advantage. For users with workloads that are heavily fill-rate limited or require dedicated VRAM, the Quadro 2000D is the data-backed choice, despite losing the overall compute benchmark.