AMD Radeon Vega 8 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and AMD Radeon Vega 8 represent two fundamentally different approaches to mobile graphics: a dedicated professional GPU from the Maxwell era versus a modern integrated processor. The benchmark data shows the Quadro M2000M winning both head-to-head tests, but the story is more complex than simple victory margins. The M2000M posts an average benchmark score of 9832 against 9221 for the Vega 8, placing them at the 47th and 45th percentiles of all GPUs respectively. That narrow percentile gap suggests these are closely matched in real-world compute tasks, despite their architectural differences.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10057 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the AMD Radeon Vega 8’s 8822 by a 14% margin. This is the larger of the two head-to-head victories.

Q: How does Vulkan performance compare between the two?

A: The Quadro M2000M also wins the Vulkan test, scoring 9606 against 8134 for the Vega 8, a delta of 18.1%. This is the biggest relative win for either GPU in the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Vega 8 have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes. The Vega 8 has a Geekbench Metal score of 10706, a test the Quadro M2000M does not have a result for. This indicates a potential platform-specific advantage on Apple’s Metal API, though no direct comparison is available.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU based on average score?

A: The Quadro M2000M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 9846 (0.1% higher), while the Vega 8’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 890M at 9210 (0.1% lower). Both GPUs sit in a dense cluster of similarly performing hardware.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and density?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 has 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, yielding 23.5M transistors per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6M per mm².

Q: What is the TDP difference, and what does it imply for their designs?

A: The Quadro M2000M has a 55 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot, while the Vega 8 is a 25 W IGP with no dedicated slot. This reflects the M2000M’s need for active cooling versus the Vega 8’s integration into a processor package.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, spanning process nodes, shader designs, and memory subsystems. The Quadro M2000M is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Vega 8, in contrast, uses AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture with the Raven chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference of 14 nm versus 28 nm explains why AMD achieves a transistor density of 23.5M per mm² against NVIDIA’s 12.6M per mm², despite the Vega 8 having over 2.6 times the total transistor count (4,940 million vs 1,870 million).

The shader configurations diverge significantly. The Quadro M2000M packs 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the Vega 8 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This ROP disparity is critical for pixel throughput: the M2000M delivers 18.19 GPixel/s versus the Vega 8’s 8.800 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with the M2000M at 45.48 GTexel/s versus 35.20 GTexel/s for the Vega 8. The FP32 compute also favors NVIDIA, with 1,455.4 GFLOPS against 1,126.4 GFLOPS, a 29% advantage that explains the benchmark lead.

Memory architecture presents a stark contrast. The Quadro M2000M uses 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 8 relies on System Shared memory, with its bus width and bandwidth described as System Shared and System Dependent respectively. This means the Vega 8’s memory performance is entirely contingent on the host system’s RAM configuration, whereas the M2000M has fixed, predictable bandwidth. The Vega 8 does offer FP16 compute at 2.253 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the M2000M lacks entirely.

Clock behavior also differs. The M2000M runs at a base of 1098 MHz with a boost of 1137 MHz, while the Vega 8 starts at a low 300 MHz base but boosts to 1100 MHz. This suggests the Vega 8 aggressively scales clocks under load, while the M2000M operates within a tighter frequency band. API support shows the Vega 8 supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the M2000M’s DirectX 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.4, indicating a newer feature set for AMD despite its older architecture generation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two Geekbench tests provide a clear, if limited, picture of relative performance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M2000M scores 10057 against the Vega 8’s 8822, a 14% delta. This win aligns with the theoretical FP32 advantage of 1,455.4 GFLOPS versus 1,126.4 GFLOPS, suggesting that raw compute throughput is the primary driver in this workload. The M2000M’s dedicated memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth likely prevents any memory bottleneck that could throttle the Vega 8’s shared memory subsystem.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The M2000M scores 9606 versus 8134, an 18.1% delta. Vulkan is a low-level API that can expose hardware differences more directly, and the M2000M’s Maxwell architecture appears to handle this workload more efficiently. Interestingly, the M2000M’s Vulkan score is only 4.5% lower than its OpenCL score, while the Vega 8’s Vulkan score drops 7.8% from its OpenCL result. This suggests NVIDIA’s driver or hardware implementation yields more consistent performance across different compute APIs.

The nearest rival data adds context. The Quadro M2000M’s average score of 9832 places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000, showing it sits at the top of a tight performance cluster. The Vega 8’s average of 9221 is 0.6% behind the GeForce GTX 960 and 0.9% behind the GTX 850M, meaning it trails a group of older dedicated GPUs. The deltaPct values for both are small, indicating that neither GPU has a commanding lead over its immediate rivals—they are all within roughly 1% of each other.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The process node differs (28 nm for NVIDIA, 14 nm for AMD), as does the foundry (TSMC versus GlobalFoundries). Transistor count shows a significant gap: 1,870 million for the M2000M versus 4,940 million for the Vega 8, with corresponding die sizes of 148 mm² and 210 mm². The transistor density of 12.6M/mm² versus 23.5M/mm² reflects the newer process node used by AMD.

Clock speeds present a mixed picture. The M2000M has a higher base clock (1098 MHz vs 300 MHz) but a nearly identical boost clock (1137 MHz vs 1100 MHz). Memory is where the differences become extreme: the M2000M has 4 GB GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 8 has System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. The shading unit count favors NVIDIA (640 vs 512), as do TMUs (40 vs 32) and ROPs (16 vs 8).

Pixel rate and texture rate both favor the M2000M, with 18.19 GPixel/s versus 8.800 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s versus 35.20 GTexel/s respectively. FP32 compute is higher on the M2000M (1,455.4 GFLOPS vs 1,126.4 GFLOPS), but only the Vega 8 supports FP16 at 2.253 TFLOPS. TDP differs by over 2x: 55 W for the M2000M versus 25 W for the Vega 8. The slot width is MXM Module versus IGP, and the bus interface is MXM-A (3.0) versus IGP.

API support shows the Vega 8 supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the M2000M’s DirectX 12 (11_0), while both offer OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support favors NVIDIA with version 1.4 versus AMD’s 1.3. Display outputs are described as Portable Device Dependent for the M2000M and Motherboard Dependent for the Vega 8, reflecting their physical integration. The M2000M uses no power connectors, same as the Vega 8, but the M2000M is designated as End-of-life with a release date of 2015-12-02, while the Vega 8 is also End-of-life but released on 2018-02-11. The predecessor and successor lineages differ: NVIDIA’s Quadro Kepler-M preceded and Quadro Pascal-M followed, while AMD’s GCN 3.0 IGP preceded and Vega II IGP followed.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a clear choice for raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins both head-to-head tests, with a 14% advantage in OpenCL and an 18.1% advantage in Vulkan. Its higher FP32 throughput, dedicated memory bandwidth, and superior pixel and texture rates all contribute to this result. The M2000M also holds a higher average benchmark score of 9832 versus 9221 and sits at a higher percentile rank (47th vs 45th).

However, the Vega 8 is not without merit. Its 25 W TDP versus 55 W makes it dramatically more power-efficient, and its IGP form factor means it requires no separate slot or cooling solution. The Vega 8’s Metal score of 10706, while not directly comparable to the M2000M’s results, indicates strong performance in that specific API. The Vega 8 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and FP16 compute, features absent from the M2000M. For systems where power consumption and thermal footprint are paramount, the Vega 8 presents a compelling alternative despite its benchmark losses.

The choice ultimately depends on the workload and platform. For users needing consistent, high-throughput compute in OpenCL or Vulkan on a mobile workstation, the M2000M is the data-backed pick. For those prioritizing low power draw, integrated simplicity, or Metal API performance, the Vega 8 holds the advantage. The 2% percentile gap between them suggests that in many real-world tasks, the difference may be barely perceptible.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins in OpenCL compute workloads, as evidenced by its 10057 score against 8822 for the Vega 8. This 14% advantage makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU computing, particularly where FP32 performance matters. The M2000M also wins in Vulkan workloads, scoring 9606 versus 8134, an 18.1% margin that indicates superior low-level API efficiency. Its higher pixel rate of 18.19 GPixel/s versus 8.800 GPixel/s suggests an advantage in rasterization-heavy tasks, and the dedicated 80.19 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable memory performance that the Vega 8 cannot guarantee with its System Dependent bandwidth.

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 wins in the Metal API category, with a score of 10706 that exceeds the M2000M’s OpenCL and Vulkan results, though no direct Metal comparison exists. The Vega 8’s FP16 capability of 2.253 TFLOPS opens up half-precision compute workloads that the M2000M cannot handle. Its 25 W TDP compared to 55 W makes it the clear winner for battery-constrained devices, and the IGP form factor eliminates the need for separate memory allocation or MXM slot compatibility. The Vega 8’s support for DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the M2000M’s (11_0) gives it a feature-level advantage in newer DirectX titles.

The specification sheet also favors the Vega 8 in transistor technology, with 4,940 million transistors on a 14 nm process versus 1,870 million on 28 nm. This newer process node allows for higher transistor density (23.5M/mm² vs 12.6M/mm²) and likely contributes to its power efficiency. However, those transistors are not translated into performance wins in the available benchmarks, meaning the Vega 8’s architectural efficiency does not overcome the M2000M’s dedicated memory and higher clock rates in the tested workloads.