Quadro K2000M vs Radeon R7 M260X
Quadro K2000M
Popular choices:
Radeon R7 M260X
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 K2000M is positioned at rank 58 and the Radeon R7 M260X is on rank 410, so the Quadro K2000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K2000M
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R7 M260X
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R7 M260X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.9% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K2000M.
| Insight | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro K2000M offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro K2000M holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $35), it costs 14% less, resulting in a 15.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+15.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($35) |
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 K2000M and Radeon R7 M260X
Quadro K2000M
The Quadro K2000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 1 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,004 points. Launch price was $265.27.
Radeon R7 M260X
The Radeon R7 M260X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 6 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 620 MHz to 715 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,013 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K2000M scores 1,004 and the Radeon R7 M260X reaches 1,013 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K2000M is built on Kepler while the Radeon R7 M260X uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (Quadro K2000M) vs 384 (Radeon R7 M260X). Raw compute: 0.5722 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000M) vs 0.5491 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 M260X).
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,004 | 1,013 |
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5722 TFLOPS+4% | 0.5491 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16+100% | 8 |
| TMUs | 32+33% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 96 KB+200% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The Quadro K2000M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 M260X has 4 GB. The Radeon R7 M260X offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.1 (11_0) (Quadro K2000M) vs 12 (11_1) (Radeon R7 M260X). Vulkan: 1.2 vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 2.
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (11_0) | 12 (11_1)+8% |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
| OpenGL | 4.6+7% | 4.3 |
| Max Displays | 4+100% | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Quadro K2000M) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R7 M260X). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP5) vs UVD 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro K2000M) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC (Radeon R7 M260X).
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP5) | UVD 3.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K2000M draws 55W versus the Radeon R7 M260X's 75W — a 30.8% difference. The Quadro K2000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K2000M) vs 350W (Radeon R7 M260X). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 85.
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-27% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Length | — | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C-6% | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 18.3+36% | 13.5 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K2000M costs 14.3% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 33.5 (Quadro K2000M) vs 28.9 (Radeon R7 M260X) — the Quadro K2000M offers 15.9% better value. The Radeon R7 M260X is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $139 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-14% | $35 |
| Performance per Dollar | 33.5+16% | 28.9 |
| Codename | GK107 | Opal |
| Release | June 1 2012 | December 6 2015 |
| Ranking | #886 | #878 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K2000M and Radeon R7 M260X
