AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon R5 M230 for raw OpenCL compute performance, as it posts a 12.4% higher score than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 in the only head-to-head benchmark recorded. However, the Quadro K2000 is the more versatile and feature-complete professional card, with support for Vulkan and Metal APIs that the R5 M230 lacks entirely. If your workload hinges on OpenCL compute, the R5 M230 is the stronger choice. If you need broader API compatibility, professional display outputs, or a dedicated single-slot card with its own power delivery, the Quadro K2000 is the only option that provides those capabilities. The R5 M230 sits in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2000 sits in the 24th percentile, making both cards entry-level performers by database standards.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses the Jet chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip on Kepler architecture, belonging to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but their internal designs diverge significantly.

The AMD chip packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip is substantially larger, with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, but its density is lower at 10.8 million per mm². This means AMD fit more logic per area, while NVIDIA used the extra die space for additional execution resources. The R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The Quadro K2000 counters with 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, giving it a 20% advantage in shader count, a 60% advantage in texture units, and a 100% advantage in ROPs.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The R5 M230 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s, which is exactly four times the memory bandwidth. Memory clock speeds are both listed at 1000 MHz, but the effective data rate differs: 2 Gbps for the R5 M230 versus 4 Gbps for the Quadro K2000. The bus interface also differs, with the R5 M230 using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the Quadro K2000 using PCIe 2.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 wins in OpenCL compute benchmarks. Its recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 4577 beats the Quadro K2000's 4071 by 12.4%. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it gives the R5 M230 a clear victory in that specific test. The R5 M230 also has a higher average benchmark score of 4577 compared to the Quadro K2000's 3964, which reflects the fact that the AMD card has only one benchmark result while the NVIDIA card has three, including lower scores in Metal and Vulkan tests.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins in API coverage and professional features. It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan entry, only a listed Vulkan 1.2.170 API. The Quadro K2000 also records a Metal benchmark score of 3630 and a Vulkan score of 4191, indicating it can run those APIs, while the R5 M230 has no such test results. For display outputs, the Quadro K2000 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the R5 M230 is listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning its outputs vary by laptop implementation.

The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 51 W TDP, while the R5 M230 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no listed TDP. The Quadro K2000 also has physical dimensions of 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the R5 M230 has no listed dimensions, consistent with its integrated nature.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071, giving AMD a 12.4% advantage.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Quadro K2000 lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support and records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4191. The R5 M230 lists Vulkan 1.2.170, but no Vulkan benchmark result is recorded for it.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two cards?

A: The Quadro K2000 delivers 64.00 GB/s, which is exactly four times the 16.00 GB/s of the R5 M230. The NVIDIA card uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the AMD card uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, while the R5 M230 has 320, giving NVIDIA a 64-unit advantage.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The R5 M230 was released in January 2014, and the Quadro K2000 was released in February 2013.

Q: What is the physical form factor of each card?

A: The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot card with dimensions of 202 mm by 111 mm. The R5 M230 is an integrated graphics processor with no listed dimensions or slot width.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it goes decisively to the AMD Radeon R5 M230. The AMD card scores 4577, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071. The 12.4% delta means the R5 M230 completes OpenCL workloads with noticeably higher throughput. This result is surprising given the Quadro K2000's hardware advantages: it has 64 more shading units, twice the ROPs, and four times the memory bandwidth. The data suggests that AMD's GCN architecture extracts better OpenCL performance per resource, or the R5 M230's drivers are better optimized for this specific workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the R5 M230's single OpenCL score of 4577 places it just 0.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 0.4% above the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621) by 0.9% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628) by 1.1%. These deltas are all within 1.1%, meaning the R5 M230 performs essentially on par with those much more prominent GPUs in OpenCL, at least in this test.

The Quadro K2000's average benchmark score of 3964 comes from three tests: OpenCL at 4071, Vulkan at 4191, and Metal at 3630. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956 (0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (0.3% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 (0.3% behind). All these rivals fall within a 0.6% spread, indicating the Quadro K2000's average performance sits in a very tight cluster of mid-range mobile and older desktop parts.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M230 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Jet | GK107 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M200) | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,270 million |

| Die size | 56 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.3M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Effective memory rate | 2 Gbps | 4 Gbps |

| Shading units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 4.880 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 12.20 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 390.4 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 51 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan support | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release date | 2014-01-06 | 2013-02-28 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |

The specification table reveals a clear hardware hierarchy. The Quadro K2000 dominates in raw compute resources: it has double the pixel rate (7.632 vs 4.880 GPixel/s), more than double the texture rate (30.53 vs 12.20 GTexel/s), and nearly double the FP32 performance (732.7 vs 390.4 GFLOPS). Its memory subsystem is categorically superior, with four times the bandwidth. The only areas where the R5 M230 matches or exceeds the Quadro are transistor density (12.3M vs 10.8M per mm²) and a slightly newer DirectX version (12 with 11_1 feature level vs 12 with 11_0). The R5 M230 also uses PCIe 3.0, but on an x8 lane width, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 on x16 lanes. Despite the Quadro's hardware superiority, the OpenCL benchmark tells a different story, with the AMD card winning by 12.4%. This disconnect between theoretical specs and real-world compute results is a notable finding in the database.