GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5,183 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3,434 points. The deltaPct of -33.7 indicates that the Quadro 2000M trails the Radeon R5 by roughly one-third in raw compute performance. This is not a marginal gap; it is a substantial margin that places the two parts in different performance tiers.

Looking at the broader competitive context, the Quadro 2000M's 3,434 score places it at the 21st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740, which averages 3,431 points, a delta of just 0.1%, meaning the Quadro 2000M and GT 740 are effectively tied in this workload. The Quadro 2000M also edges out the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3,389 points, +1.3%) and the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3,332 points, +3.1%). The only rival in its immediate cluster that beats it is the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX at 3,528 points, which is 2.7% ahead.

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, by contrast, sits at the 23rd percentile overall, but its average benchmark score of 3,883 is inflated by the fact that it has two benchmark entries. Its OpenCL score of 5,183 is the standout figure, while its Vulkan score of 2,582 drags the average down. Even with that lower Vulkan result, the Radeon R5's average remains above the Quadro 2000M's single score.

In the head-to-head comparison, the Radeon R5's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3,898 points, -0.4% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3,919 points, -0.9%), and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3,930 points, -1.2%). The only rival that beats the Radeon R5 in its list is the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 at 3,834 points, which is 1.3% behind the Radeon R5's average. Notably, the Radeon R5's average score sits between the Quadro 2000D and the GeForce MX110, but its peak OpenCL score of 5,183 is far above any of these figures.

The data shows that the AMD part wins the only direct benchmark comparison, and it does so by a wide margin. The NVIDIA part, while competitive with its immediate rivals, simply cannot match the Radeon R5's compute throughput in the OpenCL test.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M generation (x000M). It is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,170 million transistors packed into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, in contrast, uses the GCN 2.0 architecture with the Spectre SL chip, and is part of the GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri) generation. It is built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 9.8 million per square millimeter.

These process and density differences are significant. The Radeon R5 packs more than twice the transistors into a similar die area, which reflects the architectural maturity and density gains of the newer 28 nm node. The Quadro 2000M, being a 2011-era Fermi part, uses an older process that limits how many transistors can fit on a die of comparable size.

The shading resources differ as well. The Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The Radeon R5 has 256 shading units, but only 16 TMUs and 4 ROPs. This is a striking imbalance: the Radeon R5 has more shaders but far fewer texture units and ROPs. The pixel rate of the Quadro 2000M is 4.400 GPixel/s, while the Radeon R5 manages only 3.032 GPixel/s. Similarly, the texture rate favors NVIDIA at 17.60 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s. However, the FP32 compute throughput favors AMD: the Radeon R5 delivers 388.1 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 2000M delivers 422.4 GFLOPS, actually, the Quadro is higher here. The raw FP32 number is 422.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 388.1 GFLOPS for AMD, a modest NVIDIA advantage in pure floating-point math despite the OpenCL benchmark showing AMD ahead.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective). The Radeon R5, being an integrated graphics processor, uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth. Its memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This means the Radeon R5's memory performance is entirely contingent on the host system's RAM configuration, whereas the Quadro 2000M has fixed, dedicated memory resources.

The TDP figures reflect their different form factors. The Quadro 2000M is rated at 55 W and comes as an MXM Module with no power connectors required beyond the slot. The Radeon R5 is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, integrated into the Kaveri APU. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses MXM-A (3.0), while the Radeon R5 is an IGP with no separate bus interface.

API support shows a generation gap. Both support DirectX 12, but the Quadro 2000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) while the Radeon R5 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon R5 additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan entry in the data.

# The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the stronger compute performer in the one benchmark where both are measured. Its OpenCL score of 5,183 is 33.7% higher than the Quadro 2000M's 3,434. The Radeon R5 also has a higher percentile ranking at 23 versus 21, and a higher average benchmark score of 3,883 versus 3,434.

However, the choice is not purely about compute. The Quadro 2000M offers dedicated memory with fixed bandwidth, which can be advantageous for workloads that require consistent memory performance without competing with the CPU for system RAM. It also has a higher pixel rate and texture rate, and more ROPs, which may benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks.

The Radeon R5, being an IGP with a 15 W TDP, is far more power-efficient on paper and relies on system memory, making it suitable for compact, low-power platforms. Its Vulkan support is an additional capability that the Quadro lacks entirely.

For users who prioritize raw OpenCL compute and modern API support, the data points to the Radeon R5. For users who need dedicated memory and higher pixel/texture throughput in a discrete MXM form factor, the Quadro 2000M has structural advantages despite losing the compute benchmark. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a context-dependent choice.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5,183 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 3,434 for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, a difference of 33.7% in AMD's favor.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M have any performance advantages?

A: Yes. The Quadro 2000M has a higher pixel rate (4.400 GPixel/s versus 3.032 GPixel/s) and texture rate (17.60 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s), as well as higher FP32 compute (422.4 GFLOPS versus 388.1 GFLOPS).

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R5 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The Radeon R5 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 2000M is within 3.1% of the Intel HD Graphics 530, the GeForce 920MX, the GeForce GT 740, and the Intel HD Graphics P4600. The Radeon R5 is within 1.3% of the GeForce MX110, the Quadro 2000, the Quadro K2000D, and the Quadro 2000D.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The Quadro 2000M is rated at 55 W, while the Radeon R5 is rated at 15 W.

# Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins decisively in the only direct benchmark comparison. Its OpenCL score of 5,183 is 33.7% higher than the Quadro 2000M's 3,434. This makes the Radeon R5 the clear choice for compute-oriented workloads that rely on OpenCL, such as general-purpose GPU computing tasks. Its higher percentile rank (23rd versus 21st) and higher average benchmark score (3,883 versus 3,434) reinforce this advantage. The Radeon R5 also has more shading units (256 versus 192) and support for Vulkan 1.2.170, which could be relevant for applications that leverage Vulkan compute or rendering.

The Radeon R5 is also more power-efficient on paper, with a 15 W TDP versus 55 W. For integrated systems where power draw and thermals are constrained, this is a significant structural advantage.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M wins in several specific hardware metrics. Its pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s exceeds the Radeon R5's 3.032 GPixel/s by 45%. Its texture rate of 17.60 GTexel/s exceeds the Radeon R5's 12.13 GTexel/s by 45%. Its FP32 throughput of 422.4 GFLOPS is 8.8% higher than the Radeon R5's 388.1 GFLOPS. These figures suggest the Quadro 2000M may be better suited for rasterization-heavy tasks that depend on pixel fill and texture filtering, despite losing the compute benchmark.

The Quadro 2000M also has dedicated memory with a fixed bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s, which provides predictable memory performance independent of the host system. In contrast, the Radeon R5's memory performance is "System Dependent," meaning it varies with the platform's RAM speed and configuration. For workloads that require consistent memory latency or bandwidth, the Quadro's dedicated memory is a tangible benefit.

# Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics:

• Manufacturer: NVIDIA versus AMD
• Chip: GF106 versus Spectre SL
• Architecture: Fermi versus GCN 2.0
• Generation: Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) versus GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri)
• Process Node: 40 nm versus 28 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 1,170 million versus 2,410 million
• Die Size: 238 mm² versus 245 mm²
• Transistor Density: 4.9M / mm² versus 9.8M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) versus System Shared
• Memory Size: 2 GB versus System Shared
• Memory Type: DDR3 versus System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s versus System Dependent
• Shading Units: 192 versus 256
• TMUs: 32 versus 16
• ROPs: 16 versus 4
• Pixel Rate: 4.400 GPixel/s versus 3.032 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 17.60 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s
• FP32: 422.4 GFLOPS versus 388.1 GFLOPS
• TDP: 55 W versus 15 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module versus IGP
• Power Connectors: None versus (not specified)
• Bus Interface: MXM-A (3.0) versus IGP
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus Motherboard Dependent
• DirectX Version: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan Version: (not specified) versus 1.2.170
• Release Date: 2011-01-12 versus 2014-09-16
• Predecessor: Quadro FX Mobile versus TeraScale 3 IGP
• Successor: Quadro Kepler-M versus GCN 3.0 IGP
• Geekbench OpenCL Score: 3,434 versus 5,183
• Geekbench Vulkan Score: (not tested) versus 2,582
• Average Benchmark Score: 3,434 versus 3,883
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 21 versus 23