Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs Radeon R9 285

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. The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is positioned at rank #2 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Excellent cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro T2000 Max-Q

#1

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

127%

#2

Quadro T2000 Max-Q

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The Quadro T2000 Max-Q uses modern memory architecture. The Quadro T2000 Max-Q likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon R9 285 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 285.

Insight	Quadro T2000 Max-Q	Radeon R9 285
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+4.2%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.2%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro T2000 Max-Q remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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.

Quadro T2000 Max-Q Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 285 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro T2000 Max-Q and Radeon R9 285

Quadro T2000 Max-Q

The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 27 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1200 MHz to 1620 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,959 points.

Radeon R9 285

The Radeon R9 285 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 2 2014. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 918 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 190W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,680 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Quadro T2000 Max-Q scores 6,959 and the Radeon R9 285 reaches 6,680 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 285 uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (Quadro T2000 Max-Q) vs 1,792 (Radeon R9 285). Raw compute: 3.318 TFLOPS (Quadro T2000 Max-Q) vs 3.29 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 285).

Feature	Quadro T2000 Max-Q	Radeon R9 285
G3D Mark Score	6,959+4%	6,680
Architecture	Turing	GCN 3.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1024	1792+75%
Compute (TFLOPS)	3.318 TFLOPS	3.29 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64	112+75%
L1 Cache	1 MB+127%	0.44 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro T2000 Max-Q	Radeon R9 285
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 video memory. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Quadro T2000 Max-Q) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 285) — the Quadro T2000 Max-Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro T2000 Max-Q	Radeon R9 285
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Bus Width	256-bit	256-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12.1 (Quadro T2000 Max-Q) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 285). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	Quadro T2000 Max-Q	Radeon R9 285
DirectX	12.1	12.0
Vulkan	1.3+8%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6+5%	4.4
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 7.0 (Quadro T2000 Max-Q) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 285). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP9 vs UVD 5.0. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro T2000 Max-Q) vs MPEG-2,H.264 (Radeon R9 285).

Feature	Quadro T2000 Max-Q	Radeon R9 285
Encoder	NVENC 7.0	VCE 3.0
Decoder	PureVideo HD VP9	UVD 5.0
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro T2000 Max-Q draws 40W versus the Radeon R9 285's 190W — a 130.4% difference. The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro T2000 Max-Q) vs 500W (Radeon R9 285). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 2x 6-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 221mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.

Feature	Quadro T2000 Max-Q	Radeon R9 285
TDP	40W-79%	190W
Recommended PSU	350W-30%	500W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	2x 6-pin
Length	0mm	221mm
Height	0mm	109mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	—	65°C
Perf/Watt	174.0+394%	35.2