Radeon R9 M375 vs Quadro 2000D
Radeon R9 M375
Popular choices:
Quadro 2000D
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 R9 M375 is positioned at rank 565 and the Quadro 2000D is on rank 311, 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 Radeon R9 M375
Performance Per Dollar Quadro 2000D
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 | Radeon R9 M375 | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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 | Radeon R9 M375 | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+636.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) | ✅More affordable ($40) |
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 R9 M375 and Quadro 2000D
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 M375 scores 998 and the Quadro 2000D reaches 980 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 M375 is built on GCN 1.0 while the Quadro 2000D uses Fermi, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 640 (Radeon R9 M375) vs 192 (Quadro 2000D). Raw compute: 1.299 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M375) vs 0.48 TFLOPS (Quadro 2000D).
| Feature | Radeon R9 M375 | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 998+2% | 980 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 640+233% | 192 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.299 TFLOPS+171% | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40+25% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 256 KB+60% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 M375 | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R9 M375 | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 M375 draws 75W versus the Quadro 2000D's 62W — a 19% difference. The Quadro 2000D is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R9 M375) vs 350W (Quadro 2000D). Power connectors: Mobile vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R9 M375 | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 62W-17% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 13.3 | 15.8+19% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 M375 launched at $300 MSRP and currently averages $300, while the Quadro 2000D launched at $599 and now averages $40. The Quadro 2000D costs 86.7% less ($260 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 3.3 (Radeon R9 M375) vs 24.5 (Quadro 2000D) — the Quadro 2000D offers 642.4% better value. The Radeon R9 M375 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | Radeon R9 M375 | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300-50% | $599 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $300 | $40-87% |
| Performance per Dollar | 3.3 | 24.5+642% |
| Codename | Tropo | GF106 |
| Release | May 5 2015 | October 5 2011 |
| Ranking | #889 | #892 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 M375 and Quadro 2000D
