GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and AMD Radeon R5 Graphics represent two distinct approaches to GPU design: a dedicated workstation card versus an integrated graphics processor. Benchmark data shows a near-even split in performance wins, with each excelling in different API workloads. The Quadro K2000, built on Kepler, delivers a decisive victory in Vulkan, while the Radeon R5 Graphics, a GCN 2.0 IGP, counters with a strong OpenCL performance. This comparison highlights how architectural priorities and system integration shape real-world results, rather than a simple outright winner.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has an average benchmark score of 3964, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 3883. The difference is approximately 2.1%, placing the Quadro K2000 slightly ahead in overall average performance.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 21.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000’s score of 4071. This represents the Radeon R5 Graphics’ single biggest performance advantage.

Q: What is the result of the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins decisively in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 4191 against the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics’ 2582. The deltaPct of 62.3% indicates the Quadro K2000 is more than 62% faster in this specific workload.

Q: Which GPU uses more transistors and how does that relate to its performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K2000’s 1,270 million on 118 mm². Despite having nearly double the transistor count, the Radeon R5 Graphics only shows a lead in OpenCL, not in average or Vulkan performance.

Q: What are the memory configurations for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 features 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses System Shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as System Dependent, meaning it relies on the host system’s main memory.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is at the 23rd percentile. The difference is minimal, confirming that both are positioned in a similar performance tier despite their architectural differences.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK107 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die size is 118 mm² with a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². This dedicated card features 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. Its memory subsystem consists of 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The card is a single-slot design with no power connectors and a TDP of 51 W. It connects via PCIe 2.0 x16 and provides display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on the GCN 2.0 architecture with the Spectre SL chip. GlobalFoundries fabricates it on the same 28 nm process, but the die is significantly larger at 245 mm², containing 2,410 million transistors at a density of 9.8M per mm². This IGP has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and only 4 ROPs. Its memory is entirely System Shared, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM; the bandwidth is System Dependent and varies with the host platform. The TDP is much lower at 15 W, and the bus interface is listed simply as IGP. It is a motherboard-dependent solution with no standalone dimensions or power connectors.

The transistor count difference is stark: the Radeon R5 Graphics packs nearly twice the transistors (2,410 million vs 1,270 million) into a die more than twice the size (245 mm² vs 118 mm²). However, the Quadro K2000 achieves a higher transistor density (10.8M/mm² vs 9.8M/mm²). The shading unit count favors the Quadro, with 384 units versus 256, and the ROP count is four times higher (16 vs 4). These structural differences directly influence the pixel and texture rates: the Quadro K2000 reaches 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s, while the Radeon R5 Graphics manages only 3.032 GPixel/s and 12.13 GTexel/s. FP32 compute also leans strongly toward the Quadro at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 388.1 GFLOPS for the Radeon.

API support shows a notable split. The Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon R5 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Radeon’s higher DirectX feature level (12_0 vs 11_0) is a point in its favor, but the Quadro’s newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170) is a minor advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data provides only two benchmark comparisons: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Each GPU wins one test, making the overall head-to-head score a 1-1 tie.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183 against the NVIDIA Quadro K2000’s 4071. The deltaPct of -21.5% indicates that the Radeon is 21.5% ahead of the Quadro in this test. This is a substantial margin, suggesting that the Radeon’s GCN architecture is particularly well-suited to OpenCL compute workloads. The Radeon’s higher transistor count and larger die may contribute to this result, despite its lower shading unit count.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result entirely. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4191, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics trails at 2582. The deltaPct of 62.3% shows the Quadro K2000 is 62.3% faster in Vulkan. This is a dominant win, and the margin is nearly three times larger than the Radeon’s OpenCL advantage. The Quadro’s Kepler architecture appears to handle Vulkan workloads much more efficiently, even though its raw FP32 compute is lower than expected given the shading unit count.

When considering the average benchmark score, the Quadro K2000’s overall edge is small: 3964 versus 3883. This places the Quadro K2000 just 2.1% ahead on average. The nearest rivals for the Quadro K2000 are the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, deltaPct 0.2), AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, deltaPct 0.2), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, deltaPct 0.3). The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics’ nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898, deltaPct -0.4) and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, deltaPct -0.9). These rival comparisons show that both GPUs sit within a tight performance cluster, with deltas of only a few percent separating them from similar parts.

The Vulkan result is the most dramatic number in the entire comparison. A 62.3% lead is not a marginal difference; it represents a fundamental performance gap in that specific API. Conversely, the OpenCL result of 21.5% is significant but less extreme. The data suggests that neither GPU is universally superior; instead, the choice of API workload dictates the winner.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and AMD Radeon R5 Graphics:

• Chip: GK107 vs Spectre SL
• Architecture: Kepler vs GCN 2.0
• Generation: Quadro Kepler (Kx000) vs GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri)
• Foundry: TSMC vs GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 1,270 million vs 2,410 million
• Die Size: 118 mm² vs 245 mm²
• Transistor Density: 10.8M / mm² vs 9.8M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) vs System Shared
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs System Shared
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s vs System Dependent
• Shading Units: 384 vs 256
• TMUs: 32 vs 16
• ROPs: 16 vs 4
• Pixel Rate: 7.632 GPixel/s vs 3.032 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 30.53 GTexel/s vs 12.13 GTexel/s
• FP32: 732.7 GFLOPS vs 388.1 GFLOPS
• TDP: 51 W vs 15 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs IGP
• Power Connectors: None vs null
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs null
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs IGP
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 vs Motherboard Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.175 vs 1.2.170
• Dimensions: 202 mm length, 111 mm height vs null
• Release Date: 2013-02-28 vs 2014-09-16
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi vs TeraScale 3 IGP
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell vs GCN 3.0 IGP
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD vs null

The memory situation is the most fundamental difference. The Quadro K2000 has dedicated GDDR5 with fixed bandwidth, while the Radeon R5 Graphics depends entirely on system memory. This gives the Quadro a predictable performance profile, whereas the Radeon’s performance scales with the host system’s memory speed. The TDP difference is also notable: 51 W versus 15 W, reflecting the Quadro’s status as a discrete card versus the Radeon’s integrated nature.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on workload. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is the stronger choice for Vulkan-based applications, where it leads by 62.3%. Its dedicated memory, higher ROP count, and superior pixel/texture rates also make it more capable for traditional graphics tasks. The Quadro K2000 has a higher average benchmark score (3964 vs 3883) and sits at a slightly higher percentile (24th vs 23rd). Its launch MSRP was 599 USD.

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins in OpenCL compute, with a 21.5% lead. It also supports a higher DirectX feature level (12_0 vs 11_0), which could matter for certain modern games or applications. Its much lower TDP of 15 W makes it far more power-efficient, and as an IGP, it requires no additional power connectors or PCIe slot. However, its reliance on System Shared memory means performance is dependent on the host platform.

For users prioritizing Vulkan performance or needing a dedicated, self-contained graphics solution, the Quadro K2000 is the data-backed choice. For those focused on OpenCL compute workloads or building a low-power integrated system, the Radeon R5 Graphics offers a compelling alternative. The 1-1 head-to-head split means there is no universal winner; the decision hinges on the specific application and system constraints.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins in the following scenarios based on the data:

• Vulkan Applications: The 62.3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is the single largest performance margin in this comparison. Any workload that leverages Vulkan will see a substantial benefit from the Quadro K2000.
• High-Resolution Graphics: With 16 ROPs versus 4, the Quadro K2000 achieves a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s, more than double the Radeon’s 3.032 GPixel/s. This favors fill-rate-bound tasks.
• Texture-Intensive Workloads: The texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s on the Quadro K2000 is 2.5 times higher than the Radeon’s 12.13 GTexel/s, benefiting tasks that rely heavily on texture sampling.
• Compute in FP32: The Quadro K2000 delivers 732.7 GFLOPS, nearly double the Radeon’s 388.1 GFLOPS, though this advantage does not manifest in the OpenCL benchmark.

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins in these areas:

• OpenCL Compute: A score of 5183 versus 4071 represents a 21.5% lead. This is the Radeon’s strongest benchmark result and indicates efficient execution of OpenCL kernels.
• DirectX 12 Feature Level: Supporting 12_0 versus 11_0 means the Radeon can access more advanced DirectX 12 features, potentially improving compatibility with newer titles.
• Power Efficiency: At 15 W TDP versus 51 W, the Radeon uses less than a third of the power, making it suitable for compact or fanless systems.
• System Integration: As an IGP, it requires no separate card, no power connectors, and no PCIe slot, simplifying system design and reducing physical footprint.

The data shows that the Quadro K2000 is the more versatile performer across traditional graphics metrics, while the Radeon R5 Graphics excels in compute-oriented OpenCL tasks and low-power integration. Each GPU’s wins are distinct and non-overlapping, reinforcing the conclusion that the choice depends on the user’s specific workload priorities.