AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 occupy the same performance tier in the database, yet they are fundamentally different products. The Quadro M2000 is a discrete, single-slot workstation card based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the RX Vega 11 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into AMD’s Picasso APU line. Both cards hold a 56th percentile rank among all GPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the Quadro M2000 averages 14532, while the RX Vega 11 averages 14385, a margin of only 1%. However, the distribution of wins across individual tests tells a more nuanced story, with the Quadro M2000 taking both head-to-head benchmark victories.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unambiguous regarding the two shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14588 against the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11’s 12525, a decisive 16.5% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M2000 again leads with a score of 14475 versus 13543, a 6.9% margin. This means that in every directly comparable compute workload, the discrete NVIDIA card wins. The Quadro M2000’s victory is particularly pronounced in OpenCL, where the delta more than doubles that of Vulkan.

However, the RX Vega 11 is not without its own data points. The AMD IGP has a Geekbench Metal score of 17086, a test the Quadro M2000 did not run. This Metal result is significantly higher than either of the Quadro M2000’s scores, suggesting that in Apple’s Metal API environment, the RX Vega 11 may have a distinct advantage. For the two tests where both cards are measured, the Quadro M2000 wins both, but the RX Vega 11’s Metal capability indicates a platform-specific strength. In terms of aggregate performance, the two cards are effectively tied, with the Quadro M2000’s 14532 average sitting just 1% above the RX Vega 11’s 14385 average.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design philosophies and manufacturing processes. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, a node that was mature by the time of its release. The chip contains 2,940 million transistors on a die size of 228 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 uses the Picasso chip fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 12 nm process. This newer node allows for a much higher density: 4,940 million transistors packed into a 210 mm² die, resulting in 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX Vega 11’s transistor count is roughly 68% higher than the Quadro M2000’s, despite a smaller physical die.

Architecturally, the Quadro M2000 is based on Maxwell 2.0, while the RX Vega 11 uses GCN 5.0. These are fundamentally different designs. The Maxwell 2.0 architecture in the Quadro M2000 is a discrete GPU with dedicated resources, whereas GCN 5.0 in the RX Vega 11 is designed to operate as an integrated solution. The shading unit counts are close — the Quadro M2000 has 768 shaders, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs), while the RX Vega 11 has 704 shaders, 44 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The massive disparity in ROPs (32 versus 8) is a key architectural difference that impacts pixel throughput. Indeed, the pixel rate tells the story: the Quadro M2000 achieves 37.22 GPixel/s, while the RX Vega 11 manages only 11.20 GPixel/s. Interestingly, the texture rates are closer, with the Quadro M2000 at 55.82 GTexel/s and the RX Vega 11 slightly higher at 61.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is also close, with the RX Vega 11 edging ahead at 1.971 TFLOPS versus the Quadro M2000’s 1.786 TFLOPS.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 14532, compared to the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11’s 14385. This represents a 1% difference in favor of the Quadro M2000.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14475 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 6.9% higher than the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11’s score of 13543. This is one of the two head-to-head tests where the Quadro M2000 wins.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, the RX Vega 11 has a Geekbench Metal score of 17086, a test that the Quadro M2000 did not run. This Metal score is higher than any of the Quadro M2000’s recorded benchmark results.

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

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has a TDP of 75 W. The RX Vega 11 is an integrated processor with no power connectors, whereas the Quadro M2000 also requires no external power connectors but draws five times the power.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 105.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 uses system shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all described as "System Shared" or "System Dependent."

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has a pixel rate of 37.22 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11’s 11.20 GPixel/s. This is due to the Quadro M2000’s 32 ROPs versus the RX Vega 11’s 8 ROPs.

Specification Differences

The most obvious differences lie in the physical and memory characteristics. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is a discrete card with a 201 mm length and 111 mm height, occupying a single slot. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 is an IGP with no physical dimensions listed, as it is integrated into the motherboard. The Quadro M2000 connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX Vega 11 uses an IGP bus interface. Display outputs differ as well: the Quadro M2000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the RX Vega 11’s outputs are listed as "Motherboard Dependent."

The memory subsystems could not be more different. The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 105.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX Vega 11 has no dedicated memory, relying entirely on system shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." Clock speeds also diverge dramatically. The Quadro M2000 has a base clock of 796 MHz and a boost clock of 1163 MHz. The RX Vega 11 has a much lower base clock of 300 MHz but a higher boost clock of 1400 MHz. Memory clocks are similarly distinct: the Quadro M2000 runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), while the RX Vega 11’s memory is system shared.

Compute and output rates show further divergence. The Quadro M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, producing 37.22 GPixel/s and 55.82 GTexel/s. The RX Vega 11 has 704 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, producing 11.20 GPixel/s and 61.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance favors the RX Vega 11 at 1.971 TFLOPS versus 1.786 TFLOPS, and the RX Vega 11 also supports FP16 at 3.942 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the Quadro M2000 lacks entirely. The RX Vega 11 also has a lower TDP of 15 W versus 75 W, and while both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, the Quadro M2000 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the RX Vega 11 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database provides two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro M2000 scores 14588 against the RX Vega 11’s 12525. This is a 16.5% delta, the largest performance gap between the two in any shared test. The OpenCL result is particularly telling because it shows the discrete card’s advantage in a compute-heavy workload, likely due to its dedicated memory bandwidth and higher pixel rate. The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro M2000 scores 14475 and the RX Vega 11 scores 13543, a 6.9% difference. While still a win for NVIDIA, the smaller delta in Vulkan suggests that the RX Vega 11’s architecture handles this API relatively better than OpenCL.

In the context of their rivals, both cards are tightly clustered. The Quadro M2000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 itself, with a 1% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M sits at 14404 (0.9% behind the Quadro M2000), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN is at 14373 (1.1% behind). On the other side, the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT scores 14692, which is 1.1% ahead of the Quadro M2000. The RX Vega 11’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN at 14373 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M at 14404 (0.1% behind), and the AMD Radeon Vega 11 at 14352 (0.2% behind). The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is the furthest rival at 14315, sitting 0.5% behind the RX Vega 11. This data shows that both GPUs are within a 1.1% band of performance relative to their closest competitors, making them functionally equivalent in aggregate.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between the two GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins both shared benchmark tests, with a 16.5% lead in OpenCL and a 6.9% lead in Vulkan. Its pixel rate of 37.22 GPixel/s is more than triple that of the RX Vega 11, and it offers 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 105.8 GB/s bandwidth. If the workload is compute-heavy or relies on OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M2000 is the stronger choice based on the benchmark results.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 counters with a higher FP32 throughput (1.971 TFLOPS), FP16 support, a lower TDP of 15 W, and a significantly higher Geekbench Metal score of 17086. Its 61.60 GTexel/s texture rate also edges out the Quadro M2000. For users operating in a Metal-centric environment or those constrained by power consumption, the RX Vega 11 has measurable advantages. However, the RX Vega 11’s reliance on system shared memory and its 8 ROPs limit its pixel throughput.

The choice between them depends entirely on the use case. For dedicated graphics tasks in OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is the proven winner in direct comparison. For integrated, low-power scenarios or Metal-based applications, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 offers competitive compute and a better API-specific score. Both cards are end-of-life, but the benchmark data shows they remain evenly matched in general performance, with the Quadro M2000 claiming the head-to-head crown.