AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by nearly three years of development and aimed at different segments of the market. The R5 M230 is a mobile integrated-class part built for thin laptops, while the Quadro 2000 is a professional workstation card designed for desktop systems. The database records a single OpenCL benchmark for both, and the results reveal a clear performance gap, but the story is more nuanced when architectural differences and platform context are considered.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data gives the AMD Radeon R5 M230 a single win in the OpenCL compute test. It scores 4577 points, which is 17.4% higher than the Quadro 2000’s 3898 points. This is the only head-to-head benchmark in the database, so the R5 M230 wins the compute comparison outright.

However, the context around that win matters. The R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 2000 sits at the 23rd percentile. Both are low performers by modern standards, but the R5 M230 pulls ahead in raw compute throughput. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569 points, 0.2% behind), the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560 points, 0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621 points, 0.9% ahead). This clustering suggests the R5 M230 is operating right at the edge of a performance tier where small score differences are common.

The Quadro 2000, by contrast, sits in a slightly lower tier. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883 points, 0.4% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919 points, 0.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930 points, 0.8% ahead). The Quadro 2000 is not far off from these competitors, indicating that its compute performance is consistent with other entry-level professional cards of its generation.

Where the Quadro 2000 might win is in areas not covered by the single benchmark in the database. Its memory configuration is fundamentally different, with a 128-bit bus and GDDR5 memory, which typically benefits bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The R5 M230 uses a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory. The recorded data does not include a memory bandwidth benchmark, so this cannot be confirmed from the numbers, but the specification differences suggest the Quadro 2000 was designed for a different set of priorities.

Architecture Differences

The R5 M230 is built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Jet chip. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 690 million transistors packed into a 56 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a small, power-efficient chip intended for integration into laptops, as indicated by its IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The Quadro 2000 uses NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, specifically the GF106 chip. It is fabricated on an older 40 nm process, also at TSMC, with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The transistor density is 4.9 million per square millimeter. The larger, less dense chip reflects the older process technology and the desktop-oriented design. The Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card with a 178 mm length and 111 mm height, with display outputs including 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The R5 M230 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s. The Quadro 2000’s bandwidth is more than double, which is significant for many professional workloads. The R5 M230 compensates with more memory capacity, but the type and bus width favor the Quadro 2000 for data-intensive tasks.

Compute resources also differ. The R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R5 M230 has more shading units, which helps with parallel compute, while the Quadro 2000 has more TMUs and ROPs, which helps with texture filtering and pixel output. The pixel rate is 4.880 GPixel/s for the R5 M230 and 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000, a small margin in favor of the NVIDIA card. The texture rate is 12.20 GTexel/s for the R5 M230 and 20.00 GTexel/s for the Quadro 2000, a substantial 64% advantage for the Quadro 2000.

The FP32 compute rates tell a different story. The R5 M230 delivers 390.4 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 2000 delivers 480.0 GFLOPS. Despite having fewer shading units, the Quadro 2000 achieves higher raw floating-point throughput, likely due to architectural efficiency or higher clock behavior implied by the specifications. The R5 M230’s memory clock is listed at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, while the Quadro 2000’s memory clock is 650 MHz with 2.6 Gbps effective. The GDDR5 memory on the Quadro 2000 operates more efficiently per pin.

The API support is close but not identical. The R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. This means the R5 M230 has an advantage in modern API compatibility, particularly for Vulkan-based applications.

The bus interface differs as well. The R5 M230 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The newer PCIe 3.0 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the x8 configuration halves the lane count. In practice, the Quadro 2000’s PCIe 2.0 x16 has double the lanes on an older standard, which may yield comparable or better effective bandwidth in certain data transfer scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898 points. The delta is 17.4% in favor of the R5 M230. This is a decisive win for the AMD part in compute throughput.

The R5 M230’s score of 4577 places it just above the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569 points) and the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560 points), but just below the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621 points) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628 points). The deltas are small, ranging from 0.2% to 1.1%, indicating a tight cluster of GPUs around the 4577 score.

The Quadro 2000’s score of 3898 places it near the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883 points), which is only 0.4% behind, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919 points), which is 0.5% ahead. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930 points) is 0.8% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953 points) is 1.4% ahead. This cluster is noticeably lower than the R5 M230’s cluster, confirming that the 17.4% gap in the head-to-head is consistent with each card’s position relative to its peers.

The data suggests that the R5 M230’s advantage comes from its higher shading unit count and newer architecture. OpenCL workloads often scale with shading units and memory latency, and the R5 M230 has 320 shading units compared to the Quadro 2000’s 192. The R5 M230 also has a newer memory clock of 1000 MHz versus 650 MHz, although the effective bandwidth favors the Quadro 2000 due to GDDR5 and a wider bus.

The Quadro 2000’s higher FP32 rating of 480.0 GFLOPS versus the R5 M230’s 390.4 GFLOPS does not translate into a higher OpenCL score. This suggests that the benchmark is sensitive to other factors, such as driver optimization, memory latency, or the specific workload composition. The R5 M230’s GCN architecture may handle compute shaders more efficiently per clock than Fermi, despite the Quadro 2000’s higher theoretical peak.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577 points, which is 17.4% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000’s 3898 points.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth from its 128-bit GDDR5 and 128-bit bus. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro 2000’s bandwidth is more than double.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan, and what version?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 does not have a Vulkan version listed in the database.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance for each?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 delivers 480.0 GFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 delivers 390.4 GFLOPS. Despite this, the R5 M230 wins the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses a 28 nm process with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 uses a 40 nm process with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has a pixel rate of 4.880 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 12.20 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear compute winner in the AMD Radeon R5 M230, which leads by 17.4% in the OpenCL benchmark. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL applications, the R5 M230 is the stronger choice. Its higher shading unit count and newer GCN architecture appear to give it an edge in parallel workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000, however, has strengths in areas not captured by the single benchmark. Its memory bandwidth is 41.60 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s, and its texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound or texture-heavy, the Quadro 2000 likely performs better, even though the database does not include a direct benchmark to confirm this.

The Quadro 2000 also offers a wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit) and a higher pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s versus 4.880 GPixel/s). It is a desktop card with professional display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort), whereas the R5 M230 is an integrated part for portable devices with display outputs dependent on the laptop design.

The R5 M230 has better API support, including Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro 2000 lacks entirely. It also has 2 GB of memory versus 1024 MB, which may help with larger datasets, though the slower DDR3 memory could negate that advantage.

For professionals who need a dedicated desktop card with higher memory bandwidth and texture throughput, the Quadro 2000 fits that role, despite its lower compute score. For users running OpenCL workloads or requiring Vulkan support in a low-power mobile platform, the R5 M230 is the better option based on the recorded data.

The production status for both is end-of-life, so neither is a current purchase recommendation. The release dates in the database show the R5 M230 launched in January 2014, while the Quadro 2000 launched in December 2010. The Quadro 2000 is the older part, which helps explain its lower compute score despite its higher FP32 rating.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category, reflecting their different purposes and generations.

The process node is 28 nm for the R5 M230 and 40 nm for the Quadro 2000. Transistor counts are 690 million versus 1,170 million, with die sizes of 56 mm² versus 238 mm². Transistor density is 12.3M per mm² versus 4.9M per mm².

Memory differs substantially: the R5 M230 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s. Memory clocks are 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the R5 M230 and 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 2000.

Shading units are 320 versus 192, TMUs are 20 versus 32, and ROPs are 8 versus 16. Pixel rates are 4.880 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 12.20 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. FP32 rates are 390.4 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS.

The TDP is listed only for the Quadro 2000 at 62 W, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R5 M230 has no TDP listed and is marked as IGP in slot width. The Quadro 2000 is single-slot with a length of 178 mm (7 inches) and height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). Power connectors are none for the Quadro 2000, and none listed for the R5 M230.

The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R5 M230 and PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 2000. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the R5 M230 and 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort for the Quadro 2000.

API support: DirectX 12 (11_1) with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170 for the R5 M230; DirectX 12 (11_0) with OpenGL 4.6 and no Vulkan for the Quadro 2000.

The release dates are January 2014 for the R5 M230 and December 2010 for the Quadro 2000. The predecessor and successor names in the database also differ, with the R5 M230 following "Solar System" and preceding "Polaris Mobile," while the Quadro 2000 follows "Quadro FX Tesla" and precedes "Quadro Kepler." The launch MSRP for the Quadro 2000 is 599 USD, while the R5 M230 has no listed launch MSRP.