AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile versus NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is a mismatch in raw compute output, with the Quadro P2000 dominating in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. The data shows the Vega 8 Mobile, an integrated part, trails by massive margins in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, while the Quadro P2000 delivers over 2.5 times the average benchmark score despite holding a lower percentile rank among all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded measurements show a clear and decisive win for the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 across both available comparisons. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 against the Vega 8 Mobile's 7,435, a delta of 63.1% in favor of the NVIDIA part. This is not a narrow victory; the Quadro P2000 nearly triples the integrated Vega 8's compute output in this workload.

The gap widens further in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The Quadro P2000 posts 23,566 points, while the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile manages 6,970, resulting in a 70.4% deficit for the AMD part. The Vulkan result reinforces the pattern: the Pascal-based Quadro P2000 is built for sustained, high-throughput execution, while the Vega 8 Mobile is a low-power integrated solution that cannot match a dedicated workstation GPU.

The wins tally confirms this, with the Quadro P2000 taking both head-to-head benchmarks and the Vega 8 Mobile recording zero victories. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the Quadro P2000 averages 6,049 across all its recorded tests, while the Vega 8 Mobile averages 7,203. This discrepancy is notable because the Vega 8's average is higher, yet it loses both direct comparisons. The reason lies in the benchmark composition: the Quadro P2000's average includes multiple Passmark tests that score low (ranging from 28 in DirectX 12 to 626 in G2D), which drags its average down, whereas the Vega 8 Mobile only has two high-scoring Geekbench entries.

Looking at nearest rivals, the Vega 8 Mobile sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, which scores 7,222 on average, a 0.3% difference. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is also close at 7,170, a 0.5% gap. The Quadro P2000, in contrast, is bracketed by the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077, a 0.5% difference) and the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, a 0.5% gap). These numbers show that the Vega 8 Mobile, despite losing to the Quadro P2000, actually performs in a different tier than its rival's nearest competitors.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior GPU for anyone needing dedicated compute performance. Its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are more than double those of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, and it offers a substantial boost in raw throughput for professional workloads. The Vega 8 Mobile, however, is not without merit, though its strengths lie elsewhere.

The Quadro P2000 wins for users who require consistent, high-performance graphics and compute in a standalone card. It delivers 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, a 160-bit memory bus with 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and 5 GB of GDDR5 memory. These specifications, combined with its Pascal architecture, make it suitable for CAD, rendering, and GPU-accelerated tasks where the Vega 8 Mobile would bottleneck.

The Vega 8 Mobile is the pick for systems where power consumption and integration matter more than peak performance. It draws only 25 W, has no power connectors, and uses system shared memory, making it a zero-footprint solution for thin-and-light notebooks. Its 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units are enough for basic graphics acceleration, but the Quadro P2000's 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs are in a different class.

The percentile rankings add nuance: the Vega 8 Mobile sits at the 39th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro P2000 is at the 35th. This means that, in the broader GPU landscape, the Vega 8 Mobile is actually closer to the median, while the Quadro P2000, despite its workstation pedigree, is slightly below average in the full database. This is a consequence of the Quadro P2000's age and the rise of newer, faster parts, but it does not change the head-to-head outcome.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile has a higher average benchmark score at 7,203, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro P2000's 6,049.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P2000 in Vulkan?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 23,566 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 70.4% higher than the Vega 8 Mobile's 6,970.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Vega 8 Mobile uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher shading unit count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, exactly double the 512 shading units of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Vega 8 Mobile has a TDP of 25 W, while the Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W. The Quadro P2000 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 uses a 16 nm process at TSMC. The Vega 8 Mobile integrates 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, giving a density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter; the Quadro P2000 packs 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, a density of 22.0 million per square millimeter.

Clock speeds are starkly different. The Vega 8 Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1,101 MHz, while the Quadro P2000 runs at a base of 1,076 MHz and boosts to 1,480 MHz. The memory clock also differs: the Vega 8 Mobile uses system shared memory, while the Quadro P2000 runs its GDDR5 at 1,752 MHz, or 7 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity, bus width, and bandwidth all favor the Quadro P2000: 5 GB versus system shared, 160-bit versus system shared, and 140.2 GB/s versus system dependent. The shading units are 512 versus 1,024, TMUs are 32 versus 64, and ROPs are 8 versus 40. Pixel rate is 8.808 GPixel/s for the Vega 8 Mobile versus 59.20 GPixel/s for the Quadro P2000, and texture rate is 35.23 GTexel/s versus 94.72 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,127.4 GFLOPS versus 3.031 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64).

The TDP is 25 W for the Vega 8 Mobile versus 75 W for the Quadro P2000. The Vega 8 Mobile is an IGP with no slot width, power connectors, or bus interface beyond IGP, while the Quadro P2000 is a single-slot card using PCIe 3.0 x16, with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the Vega 8 Mobile, while the Quadro P2000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro P2000 also has physical dimensions of 196 mm in length and 111 mm in height, which the Vega 8 Mobile lacks entirely.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile is based on GCN 5.0 architecture, using the Raven-M chip, and belongs to the Vega IGP generation (Raven Ridge-M). Its predecessor is GCN 3.0 IGP, and its successor is Navi II IGP. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 uses the Pascal architecture, built around the GP106 chip, and is part of the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation. Its predecessor is Quadro Maxwell, and its successor is Quadro Volta.

The process nodes differ: 14 nm for AMD versus 16 nm for NVIDIA. The Vega 8 Mobile's transistor count is higher at 4,940 million versus 4,400 million, and its die size is larger at 210 mm² versus 200 mm². However, the Vega 8 Mobile's density is slightly higher at 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter versus 22.0 million.

In terms of compute resources, the Quadro P2000 doubles the Vega 8 Mobile in shading units and TMUs, and quintuples the ROP count, going from 8 to 40. The Quadro P2000 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 8 Mobile only reaches Vulkan 1.3; both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The release dates are close, with the Vega 8 Mobile coming out on January 7, 2019, and the Quadro P2000 on February 5, 2017. Both are end-of-life products today.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins in every measure of raw performance. Its OpenCL score of 20,125 and Vulkan score of 23,566 are well beyond the Vega 8 Mobile's 7,435 and 6,970. The Quadro P2000's dedicated 5 GB of GDDR5 memory with 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth makes it the clear choice for memory-intensive tasks like large texture loads, multi-viewport rendering, or compute kernels that spill beyond shared memory limits. Its 59.20 GPixel/s pixel rate is nearly seven times the Vega 8 Mobile's 8.808 GPixel/s, indicating much faster rasterization for high-resolution displays. The 94.72 GTexel/s texture rate is almost triple the Vega 8 Mobile's 35.23 GTexel/s, helping with complex shader and texture work.

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile wins in efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP is one-third of the Quadro P2000's 75 W, and it requires no additional power connectors or a dedicated PSU recommendation. It is an IGP, meaning it occupies no slot space and draws from system memory, which simplifies system design. Its higher average benchmark score of 7,203 versus 6,049 suggests that, in the specific Geekbench workloads it was tested on, it punches above its weight relative to the broader database. The Vega 8 Mobile also has a higher transistor density and a 14 nm process, which may offer better power efficiency per transistor in light loads.

For users, the split is simple: the Quadro P2000 is for dedicated GPU workstations where compute speed and memory bandwidth are critical. The Vega 8 Mobile is for portable, low-power devices where the GPU is a secondary component and the priority is battery life and thermal headroom. The data does not support any scenario where the Vega 8 Mobile outruns the Quadro P2000 in raw performance; it only wins on power, size, and system simplicity.