CPU
GPU
Quadro 2000D
Popular choices:
Radeon R9 M375
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro 2000D is positioned at rank 311 and the Radeon R9 M375 is on rank 565, so the Quadro 2000D offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro 2000D
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R9 M375
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 M375 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro 2000D.
| Insight | Quadro 2000D | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro 2000D offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro 2000D holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $300), it costs 87% less, resulting in a 636.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro 2000D | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+636.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($40) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro 2000D and Radeon R9 M375
Quadro 2000D
The Quadro 2000D is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 5 2011. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 625 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 62W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 980 points. Launch price was $599.
Radeon R9 M375
The Radeon R9 M375 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1015 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 998 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro 2000D scores 980 and the Radeon R9 M375 reaches 998 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro 2000D is built on Fermi while the Radeon R9 M375 uses GCN 1.0, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro 2000D) vs 640 (Radeon R9 M375). Raw compute: 0.48 TFLOPS (Quadro 2000D) vs 1.299 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M375).
| Feature | Quadro 2000D | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 980 | 998+2% |
| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 640+233% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.48 TFLOPS | 1.299 TFLOPS+171% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 40+25% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB+60% | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro 2000D | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Quadro 2000D | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro 2000D draws 62W versus the Radeon R9 M375's 75W — a 19% difference. The Quadro 2000D is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro 2000D) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M375). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile.
| Feature | Quadro 2000D | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 62W-17% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 15.8+19% | 13.3 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro 2000D launched at $599 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the Radeon R9 M375 launched at $300 and now averages $300. The Quadro 2000D costs 86.7% less ($260 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 24.5 (Quadro 2000D) vs 3.3 (Radeon R9 M375) — the Quadro 2000D offers 642.4% better value. The Radeon R9 M375 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | Quadro 2000D | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $599 | $300-50% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40-87% | $300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 24.5+642% | 3.3 |
| Codename | GF106 | Tropo |
| Release | October 5 2011 | May 5 2015 |
| Ranking | #892 | #889 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro 2000D and Radeon R9 M375
