Radeon R9 285 vs Quadro T2000 Max-Q

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.

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

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

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

Radeon R9 285 Benchmark Check

Quadro T2000 Max-Q Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

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

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.

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.

⚡

Graphics Performance

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

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

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R9 285	Quadro T2000 Max-Q
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)

Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 285) vs 1 MB (Quadro T2000 Max-Q) — the Quadro T2000 Max-Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

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

🖥️

Display & API Support

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

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

🎬

Media & Encoding

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

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

🔌

Power & Dimensions

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

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