AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct benchmark comparison available between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is a clear, if modest, victory for the AMD Radeon R5 M230. The AMD part scores 4577, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 trails at 4249. This translates to the R5 M230 holding a 7.2% performance advantage in this specific compute workload, a lead that is noticeable but not transformative. The data indicates a win for the AMD side in this single head-to-head matchup, giving it a 1–0 record over the Quadro.

However, looking solely at that one score paints an incomplete picture. The Quadro P400 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119, a test the older Radeon does not appear in the data for. This absence is itself a data point. The R5 M230, built on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, lacks a Vulkan result in the pack, whereas the Pascal-based Quadro demonstrates cross-API capability. When examining the average benchmark scores, the gap narrows considerably. The Quadro P400 averages 4684 across its two tests, while the R5 M230 averages 4577 from its single OpenCL result. This puts the NVIDIA card 2.3% ahead on average, flipping the narrative from the head-to-head result.

The percentile rankings offer a broader context. Both GPUs sit at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they occupy a similar, low-to-mid tier of overall performance. The nearest rivals for the Quadro P400 include the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, which outperforms it by 0.9%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, which it beats by 1.2%. Interestingly, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is listed as a near-identical performer to the R5 M230’s rival, the RX 560. The R5 M230’s own rivals show it trailing the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M by 0.9% and the GeForce GTX 970M by 1.1%, while leading the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 0.4%. The data suggests that while the R5 M230 wins the single direct test, the Quadro P400’s Vulkan capability and higher average score indicate a more versatile and generally stronger compute profile.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide between these two processors is a generational and architectural one. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 is built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. Its chip, the GP107, packs 3,300 million transistors onto a 132 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². In stark contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm node. Its Jet chip is far smaller and simpler, containing 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, for a density of just 12.3 million per mm².

These process and design choices have cascading effects. The Quadro’s newer node and denser packing allow for a much higher power efficiency envelope, reflected in its 30 W TDP, despite the fact that the R5 M230’s TDP is not specified in the data. The memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The P400 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 32.06 GB/s. The R5 M230 also has 2 GB, but it is the slower DDR3 type, and despite having the same 64-bit bus width, its bandwidth is halved to just 16.00 GB/s. This memory bandwidth deficit is a critical architectural weakness for the AMD part, likely explaining its lower compute throughput in the OpenCL test despite having more raw compute units.

The compute unit configurations tell a story of different design philosophies. The R5 M230 has more shading units (320) and texture mapping units (20) than the Quadro P400 (256 and 16, respectively). Yet, the R5 M230 has only 8 ROPs compared to the Quadro’s 16. This means the AMD card can theoretically process more shader instructions but is significantly weaker at final pixel output. The measured rates confirm this: the Quadro P400 achieves a pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.03 GTexel/s, while the R5 M230 manages only 4.88 GPixel/s and 12.20 GTexel/s. Even in FP32 compute, the P400’s 641.0 GFLOPS towers over the R5 M230’s 390.4 GFLOPS. The R5 M230’s higher shading unit count does not translate to real-world performance, likely bottlenecked by its slower memory and older architecture.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 wins in one specific scenario: the single OpenCL compute workload. Its score of 4577 is higher than the Quadro’s 4249, suggesting that for compute tasks that are optimized for OpenCL and are not heavily bandwidth-limited, the R5 M230 can hold its own and even outperform its newer rival. This is a narrow victory, however, and the data does not suggest it would generalize to other workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins in every other measurable category. It dominates in raw compute throughput, with an FP32 rating of 641.0 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS. Its pixel and texture rates are dramatically higher, making it the clear choice for any task involving rasterization, pixel shading, or texture filtering. The P400’s Vulkan score of 5119, while not directly comparable to the R5 M230, demonstrates a modern API capability that the GCN 1.0 part lacks, as the R5 M230 only supports Vulkan 1.2.170 compared to the P400’s 1.4. The data indicates the Quadro is superior for gaming, professional visualization, and any workload that benefits from high memory bandwidth or modern graphics APIs. The R5 M230’s only claim to a win is that specific OpenCL test, and even then, the P400’s average score across all tests is higher.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has a higher average benchmark score of 4684, compared to the AMD Radeon R5 M230’s average of 4577.

Q: In the direct head-to-head OpenCL test, what is the performance difference?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577, which is 7.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P400’s score of 4249 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Are these GPUs considered high-performance parts?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA Quadro P400 and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 sit at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are low-to-mid tier performers.

Q: Which GPU offers better memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 offers significantly better memory bandwidth at 32.06 GB/s, using GDDR5 memory. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 offers only 16.00 GB/s using DDR3 memory.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M230 have a higher raw compute unit count?

A: Yes, the R5 M230 has 320 shading units and 20 TMUs, while the Quadro P400 has 256 shading units and 16 TMUs. However, the Quadro has double the ROPs (16 vs 8) and a much higher FP32 throughput.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400’s GP107 chip has a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm², while the AMD Radeon R5 M230’s Jet chip has a density of 12.3 million per mm².

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P400 | AMD Radeon R5 M230 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,300 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 132 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.06 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 320 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 16 | 20 |

| Render Output Units | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.03 GPixel/s | 4.880 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.03 GTexel/s | 12.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 641.0 GFLOPS | 390.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the superior processor in nearly every measurable aspect. Its architecture is more recent, its memory subsystem is twice as fast, and its compute and pixel throughput figures are vastly higher. The only benchmark where the AMD Radeon R5 M230 wins is the single Geekbench OpenCL test, where its 7.2% lead suggests a specific optimization or workload fit that favors its particular configuration of more shading units.

For any user whose priority is compute performance in OpenCL applications that happen to align with the R5 M230’s strengths, the AMD part could be considered. Its victory in that test is real and should not be dismissed. However, for any other workload—anything involving modern APIs like Vulkan, high-resolution pixel pushing, or memory-intensive tasks—the Quadro P400 is the unequivocal choice. Its Vulkan score of 5119 demonstrates a capability the R5 M230 simply does not have, and its higher average benchmark score of 4684 versus 4577 confirms its overall superiority. The R5 M230 is a product of an older era, and while it holds a narrow niche, the Quadro P400 is the more capable and future-proof option based on the available data.