CPU
GPU
Radeon R7 M260X
Popular choices:
Quadro K2000M
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 Radeon R7 M260X is positioned at rank 410 and the Quadro K2000M is on rank 58, 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 Radeon R7 M260X
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K2000M
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 | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.9%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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 | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+15.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($35) | ✅More affordable ($30) |
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 Radeon R7 M260X and Quadro K2000M
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R7 M260X scores 1,013 and the Quadro K2000M reaches 1,004 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R7 M260X is built on GCN 1.0 while the Quadro K2000M uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 384 (Quadro K2000M). Raw compute: 0.5491 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 0.5722 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000M).
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,013 | 1,004 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5491 TFLOPS | 0.5722 TFLOPS+4% |
| ROPs | 8 | 16+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 32+33% |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB+200% | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R7 M260X comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K2000M has 2 GB. The Radeon R7 M260X offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_1) (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 11.1 (11_0) (Quadro K2000M). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_1)+8% | 11.1 (11_0) |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6+7% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 4+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (Radeon R7 M260X) vs NVENC (Quadro K2000M). Decoder: UVD 3.0 vs PureVideo HD (VP5). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC (Radeon R7 M260X) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro K2000M).
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 1.0 | NVENC |
| Decoder | UVD 3.0 | PureVideo HD (VP5) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R7 M260X draws 75W versus the Quadro K2000M's 55W — a 30.8% difference. The Quadro K2000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 350W (Quadro K2000M). Power connectors: Mobile vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 85 vs 80°C.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 55W-27% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 85 | 80°C-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 13.5 | 18.3+36% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K2000M costs 14.3% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 28.9 (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 33.5 (Quadro K2000M) — the Quadro K2000M offers 15.9% better value. The Radeon R7 M260X is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $139 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $35 | $30-14% |
| Performance per Dollar | 28.9 | 33.5+16% |
| Codename | Opal | GK107 |
| Release | December 6 2015 | June 1 2012 |
| Ranking | #878 | #886 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R7 M260X and Quadro K2000M
