AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is exceptionally close. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577. That is a delta of just 0.2 percent in favor of the Quadro, a margin well within typical run-to-run variance for mobile graphics workloads. In practical terms, these two GPUs are effectively tied in raw OpenCL compute performance.

Looking at the broader context of the database, the Radeon R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4577. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (0.2 percent slower), the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (0.4 percent slower), and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (0.9 percent faster). The Quadro K2100M, meanwhile, sits at the 25th percentile with an average score of 4151, though this average is pulled down by its additional benchmark results in Metal and Vulkan, where it scores 3524 and 4343 respectively. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4170 (0.4 percent faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at 4193 (1 percent faster), and the Intel HD Graphics 630 at 4075 (1.9 percent slower).

The OpenCL head-to-head shows the K2100M winning by a hair, but the R5 M230 is not far behind at all. The recorded data indicates that in compute tasks using OpenCL, a user would be hard-pressed to notice any difference between these two. The K2100M does have additional API coverage with Metal and Vulkan benchmarks, which the R5 M230 lacks entirely in the database, so any comparison beyond OpenCL must rely on architectural considerations rather than direct measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M edges out the AMD Radeon R5 M230 by 0.2 percent, scoring 4587 versus 4577 in Geekbench OpenCL.

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

A: The R5 M230 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 560 (0.2 percent faster) and Intel HD Graphics P530 (0.4 percent faster), while trailing the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M by 0.9 percent. The K2100M is 0.4 percent slower than the AMD Radeon R5 M330, 1 percent slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, and 1.9 percent faster than the Intel HD Graphics 630.

Q: Does the Quadro K2100M support more graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the database records benchmark scores for the K2100M in Geekbench Metal (3524), Vulkan (4343), and OpenCL (4587). The R5 M230 only has an OpenCL score recorded. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the K2100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175 while the R5 M230 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The Radeon R5 M230 ranks at the 27th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K2100M ranks at the 25th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The R5 M230 has an average benchmark score of 4577, while the K2100M averages 4151. However, the K2100M's average includes Metal and Vulkan results that are lower than its OpenCL score, so this difference reflects the breadth of testing rather than a clear performance gap.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The R5 M230 was released on January 6, 2014, while the K2100M was released on July 22, 2013.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two mobile GPUs is substantial, even if their OpenCL scores are nearly identical. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Jet, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The chip features 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, by contrast, uses the Kepler architecture on a chip codenamed GK106S, also built by TSMC on 28 nm. The die is far larger at 221 mm², housing 2,540 million transistors, though the density is slightly lower at 11.5 million per square millimeter. The K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, nearly double the R5 M230 in each category.

The memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The R5 M230 runs 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The K2100M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth at a 752 MHz memory clock (3 Gbps effective). That is three times the bandwidth, a critical factor for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The K2100M runs at a fixed 667 MHz for both base and boost, with no dynamic range. The R5 M230 has no base or boost clock recorded in the database, so a direct clock comparison is not possible from the data. However, the K2100M's higher shading unit count and wider memory bus compensate for its modest clock speed. The result is a significant throughput advantage: the K2100M achieves 8.004 GPixel/s pixel rate and 32.02 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 4.880 GPixel/s and 12.20 GTexel/s for the R5 M230.

FP32 compute follows suit. The K2100M delivers 768.4 GFLOPS, while the R5 M230 delivers 390.4 GFLOPS, almost exactly half. Neither GPU has recorded FP16 performance.

Power and form factor also differ. The K2100M has a TDP of 55 W and uses an MXM module slot with no power connectors required. The R5 M230 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no TDP listed and no slot width beyond "IGP". Both use portable device-dependent display outputs.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. If raw compute throughput matters, the Quadro K2100M is the stronger part: its 768.4 GFLOPS FP32 performance, 48.13 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 8.004 GPixel/s pixel rate all dwarf the R5 M230's corresponding figures. In any workload that stresses shading units, texture filtering, or memory bandwidth, the K2100M should pull ahead decisively, even though the OpenCL benchmark shows only a 0.2 percent gap.

The Radeon R5 M230, however, is not without merit. It matches the K2100M in OpenCL compute despite having half the FP32 throughput, which suggests its GCN architecture is highly efficient for certain compute kernels. It also has a slightly higher percentile ranking at 27 versus 25, and its nearest rivals are all clustered within a 1.1 percent band, indicating consistent behavior across similar workloads.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload type. The K2100M is the safer choice for graphics-intensive tasks, CAD, or any application that can leverage its wider memory bus and higher texture rate. The R5 M230 is acceptable for general compute or light graphics, where its OpenCL parity with the K2100M means the difference will be imperceptible.

Neither GPU is current; both are end-of-life products released in 2013 and 2014. The K2100M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. The R5 M230's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. These are legacy parts, and the database shows them clustered with integrated graphics and older mobile GPUs in performance rankings.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M230 | NVIDIA Quadro K2100M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | Jet | GK106S |

| Transistors | 690 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 48.13 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 576 |

| TMUs | 20 | 48 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.880 GPixel/s | 8.004 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 12.20 GTexel/s | 32.02 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 390.4 GFLOPS | 768.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 55 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2014-01-06 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Maxwell-M |

Both GPUs share 2 GB of memory, 28 nm process, TSMC foundry, DirectX 12 support, OpenGL 4.6, and end-of-life production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2100M wins in nearly every measured specification category. Its 576 shading units versus 320, 48 TMUs versus 20, and 16 ROPs versus 8 give it a structural advantage in geometry processing and pixel fill. The 48.13 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 16.00 GB/s is the most decisive difference, as it directly impacts texture streaming, frame buffer operations, and any workload with large working sets. The K2100M also has a higher Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170) and additional benchmark coverage in Metal and Vulkan.

The Radeon R5 M230 wins in transistor density (12.3M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm²), which indicates a more efficient use of silicon area. It also holds a slightly higher percentile ranking (27 versus 25) and a higher average benchmark score (4577 versus 4151), though the latter is skewed by the K2100M's additional lower-scoring API benchmarks. The R5 M230's OpenCL score is within 0.2 percent of the K2100M, meaning that for pure compute tasks like OpenCL workloads, the R5 M230 effectively ties the K2100M despite its far smaller die and lower transistor count.

For practical use, the K2100M is the clear pick for gaming, 3D rendering, video editing, or any task where memory bandwidth and texture throughput matter. The R5 M230 is the pick for compute-focused tasks where OpenCL performance is the primary metric, or for systems where an integrated GPU is the only option. The database shows no scenario where the R5 M230 wins outright in a benchmark, but its parity in OpenCL means the choice is not obvious for compute-only users.