AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are two end-of-life 28 nm GPUs aimed at very different segments: one is a low-power mobile part, the other a workstation card sold at a 599 USD launch MSRP. The recorded data shows a surprising result, with the inexpensive mobile Radeon outscoring the Quadro in the database's only shared benchmark, while the Quadro holds clear advantages in raw specifications. This comparison walks through what the numbers actually mean for anyone deciding between them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is one shared test in the database: geekbench_opencl. The Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577, the Quadro K2000D scores 3919, and the winner is the R5 M230 by 16.8 percent. That is a decisive gap for a part with a much smaller die and half the memory bandwidth.

Context from the percentile fields reinforces the upset. The R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, the K2000D at the 23rd. Both are firmly entry-level by modern standards, but the Radeon ranks measurably higher.

The rivalry data frames each card's neighborhood. The R5 M230's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569 average, within 0.2 percent), the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, within 0.4 percent), the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, 0.9 percent ahead), and the GeForce GTX 970M (4628, 1.1 percent ahead). In other words, in this OpenCL test the R5 M230 trades blows with cards generally considered a class above it.

The K2000D's rivals are far more modest: the Quadro 2000D (3930, 0.3 percent ahead), the Quadro 2000 (3898, 0.5 percent behind), the GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.9 percent ahead), and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, 0.9 percent behind). That cluster confirms the K2000D's compute performance in this test is on par with older entry-level parts.

The head-to-head tally: one win for the R5 M230, zero for the K2000D.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the database's benchmark?

A: The Radeon R5 M230. It scores 4577 in geekbench_opencl versus 3919 for the K2000D, a 16.8 percent advantage.

Q: How do their theoretical specs compare?

A: The K2000D leads on paper. It delivers 732.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 390.4 GFLOPS, a 7.632 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 4.880 GPixel/s, and a 30.53 GTexel/s texture rate versus 12.20 GTexel/s.

Q: Which has better memory?

A: The K2000D, clearly. It uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M230 uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for 16.00 GB/s, exactly a quarter of the bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan. The R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level and Vulkan 1.2.170; the K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do their power and physical requirements differ?

A: The K2000D has a 51 W TDP, needs no power connectors, fits a single slot, and carries a 250 W suggested PSU. The R5 M230 is an IGP-class mobile part with no recorded TDP, connectors, or PSU requirement in the database.

Q: Are either of these still in production?

A: No. Both are flagged as end-of-life. The R5 M230 shipped in January 2014; the K2000D in February 2013.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs were fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but they diverge everywhere else. The R5 M230 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on the Jet chip, part of the Gem System (R5 M200) generation, and succeeded the Solar System line before giving way to Polaris Mobile. The K2000D uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture on the GK107 chip, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, following Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell.

The silicon scale differs substantially. The K2000D packs 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, for a density of 10.8M per mm². The R5 M230 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a higher density of 12.3M per mm². So the Quadro uses roughly twice the silicon and nearly twice the transistors, which explains its higher theoretical throughput, while the Radeon's smaller die reflects its mobile, power-constrained design intent.

Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, as expected for GPUs of this era. Neither has recorded base, boost, or game clocks. Memory clocks are both quoted at 1000 MHz, but effective rates differ: 2 Gbps effective for the R5 M230's DDR3 and 4 Gbps effective for the K2000D's GDDR5.

Specification Differences

Only the fields where the two differ:

• Shading units: 384 (K2000D) vs 320 (R5 M230)
• TMUs: 32 vs 20
• ROPs: 16 vs 8
• FP32 compute: 732.7 GFLOPS vs 390.4 GFLOPS
• Pixel rate: 7.632 GPixel/s vs 4.880 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 30.53 GTexel/s vs 12.20 GTexel/s
• Memory type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Bus width: 128 bit vs 64 bit
• Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• TDP: 51 W vs not recorded
• Slot width: Single-slot vs IGP
• Power connectors: None vs not applicable
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs none listed
• Display outputs: 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 vs "Portable Device Dependent"
• DirectX feature level: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.175 vs 1.2.170
• Dimensions (K2000D only): 202 mm long, 111 mm high
• Transistors, die size, density: as detailed above
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD for the K2000D; not recorded for the R5 M230
• Release dates: February 2013 vs January 2014

Both share 2 GB of memory, OpenGL 4.6, TSMC 28 nm production, and end-of-life status.

The Verdict

The data presents a split decision. If the question is measured OpenCL compute performance, the Radeon R5 M230 wins outright: 4577 vs 3919, a 16.8 percent margin, plus a higher database-wide percentile (27 vs 23). It also edges the K2000D on DirectX feature level support and offers the newer PCIe 3.0 interface, though on a narrower x8 link.

If the question is graphics capability, the Quadro K2000D dominates the specification sheet. It has more shading units (384 vs 320), double the ROPs (16 vs 8), double the memory bus width (128-bit vs 64-bit), and four times the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s). Its theoretical rates are far higher across the board: nearly double the FP32 compute, roughly 1.6 times the pixel rate, and 2.5 times the texture rate. The database does not include gaming or graphics benchmarks for this pairing, so that advantage remains theoretical rather than measured.

Practical fit also matters. The R5 M230 is a mobile IGP-class part with device-dependent display outputs, suited to laptops where it was soldered in. The K2000D is a proper single-slot desktop workstation card with fixed outputs (2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2), a 51 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU, making it easy to slot into compact workstations. For anyone building or maintaining a legacy desktop today, the K2000D is the only one of the two that is actually installable; the R5 M230 exists only in whatever old laptops still carry it.

Where Each One Wins

R5 M230 wins for:

• Measured OpenCL compute: 4577 vs 3919, a 16.8 percent lead, the only head-to-head result recorded
• Database standing: 27th percentile vs 23rd
• Compute-peer pedigree: it scores within roughly 1 percent of the Quadro M3000M and GeForce GTX 970M in this test
• Slightly newer API support at the feature level: DirectX 12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Newer bus standard: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs PCIe 2.0 x16
• Higher transistor density: 12.3M per mm² vs 10.8M per mm²

K2000D wins for:

• Theoretical FP32 compute: 732.7 GFLOPS vs 390.4 GFLOPS
• Memory subsystem: GDDR5, 128-bit bus, 64.00 GB/s vs DDR3, 64-bit, 16.00 GB/s
• Pixel throughput: 7.632 GPixel/s vs 4.880 GPixel/s
• Texture throughput: 30.53 GTexel/s vs 12.20 GTexel/s
• Rasterization hardware: 16 ROPs and 32 TMUs vs 8 and 20
• Fixed workstation connectivity: 2x DVI plus mini-DisplayPort 1.2 vs device-dependent outputs
• Desktop usability: single-slot card, 51 W TDP, no auxiliary power, 250 W suggested PSU

In short: the benchmark data favors the R5 M230 in compute, the specification data favors the K2000D everywhere else, and the choice comes down to whether measured OpenCL performance or graphics hardware capability matters more for the workload at hand.