AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single direct comparison between these two GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6,975. This represents a 65.3% deficit for the AMD part, meaning the Quadro P2000 delivers nearly three times the raw compute performance in this workload. The delta is stark: the Quadro P2000 outperforms the Radeon R5 M240 by a margin that places them in entirely different performance tiers.

Context from the database's nearest rival data reinforces this gap. The Radeon R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6,975. Its closest competitors include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (0.7% behind), and the NVIDIA T600 (0.8% behind). The Quadro P2000, by contrast, holds a 35th percentile ranking with an average score of 6,049 across all its recorded benchmarks, though its OpenCL score of 20,125 is substantially higher than that average due to the inclusion of other tests.

The Quadro P2000 also has additional benchmark data that the Radeon R5 M240 lacks entirely. In PassMark tests, the Quadro P2000 records scores of 124 in DirectX 9, 34 in DirectX 10, 47 in DirectX 11, and 28 in DirectX 12. Its PassMark G2D score is 626, its G3D score is 6,956, and its GPU compute score is 2,933. The Radeon R5 M240 has no comparable entries in the database, so no direct head-to-head comparison is possible for those workloads. The Vulkan score for the Quadro P2000 (23,566) further demonstrates its higher compute ceiling, though the AMD card has no corresponding Vulkan measurement.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, built around the "Jet" chip. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 uses the Pascal architecture on a 16 nm TSMC process, built around the "GP106" chip. It contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 16 nm, which contributes to the Quadro P2000's higher transistor count and density despite a larger die.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The Radeon R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. That is more than triple the shading units, over triple the TMUs, and five times the ROPs. Clock speeds also favor the NVIDIA part: base clock of 1,076 MHz versus 1,000 MHz, and boost clock of 1,480 MHz versus 1,030 MHz. The resulting pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s for the Quadro P2000 versus 8.24 GPixel/s for the Radeon R5 M240, and texture rates are 94.72 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput stands at 3.031 TFLOPS for the Quadro P2000 versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the AMD card.

Memory subsystems are also in different leagues. The Radeon R5 M240 offers 1,024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with memory clocked at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro P2000 offers 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, with memory at 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 140.2 GB/s. That is roughly ten times the memory bandwidth and five times the capacity. The Quadro P2000 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support differs as well. The Radeon R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card also lists four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD card has no display outputs recorded. Power characteristics are only recorded for the Quadro P2000: a 75 W TDP, single-slot form factor, no power connectors required, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Radeon R5 M240 has no TDP, slot width, or power connector data in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 6,975 for the AMD Radeon R5 M240. The Quadro P2000 leads by 65.3%.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Radeon R5 M240 has 1,024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Radeon R5 M240 has 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter on a 28 nm process. The Quadro P2000 has 22.0 million per square millimeter on a 16 nm process.

Q: Does the Radeon R5 M240 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, it supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro P2000 supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer version.

Q: What are the shading unit counts?

A: The Radeon R5 M240 has 320 shading units. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, more than triple the count.

Q: Which card has a recorded PassMark G3D score?

A: Only the Quadro P2000 has a PassMark G3D score in the database, recording 6,956. The Radeon R5 M240 has no PassMark entries.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M240 | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 690 million | 4,400 million |

| Die size | 56 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.3M / mm² | 22.0M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 1076 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1030 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 1024 MB | 5 GB |

| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 140.2 GB/s |

| Shading units | 320 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 20 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 40 |

| Pixel rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 59.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 94.72 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 3.031 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | Not recorded | 75 W |

| Slot width | Not recorded | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

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

| Display outputs | Not recorded | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release date | 2014-09-17 | 2017-02-05 |

| Production status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior GPU in every measurable category recorded in the database. Its OpenCL score of 20,125 dwarfs the Radeon R5 M240's 6,975, a 65.3% advantage. The Quadro P2000 also offers substantially more shading units (1,024 versus 320), higher clocks (1,480 MHz boost versus 1,030 MHz), and vastly superior memory bandwidth (140.2 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s). The FP32 throughput of 3.031 TFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS means the NVIDIA card can handle compute workloads that would simply overwhelm the AMD part.

The Radeon R5 M240 is an older, lower-tier product from 2014, while the Quadro P2000 arrived in 2017. The process node advantage (16 nm versus 28 nm) and the larger, more complex GP106 chip give the Quadro P2000 a structural edge that no driver optimization could close. For any task requiring raw compute, rendering, or memory throughput, the Quadro P2000 is the clear choice. The Radeon R5 M240's only "advantage" is its smaller die and lower transistor count, which are not performance benefits but rather indicators of its more modest scope.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro P2000: The Quadro P2000 wins in every benchmark category where both cards have recorded data. Its OpenCL performance is 65.3% ahead. It offers higher pixel rate (59.20 GPixel/s versus 8.24 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (94.72 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 compute (3.031 TFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS). The 5 GB GDDR5 memory pool with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth enables larger datasets and faster transfers than the 1 GB DDR3 with 14.40 GB/s on the AMD card. The Quadro P2000 also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides double the lane width of the Radeon's x8 connection.

AMD Radeon R5 M240: The Radeon R5 M240 has no recorded benchmark wins against the Quadro P2000. Its only advantages are physical: a smaller die (56 mm² versus 200 mm²), lower transistor count (690 million versus 4,400 million), and no recorded TDP, power connector, or slot width requirements. The database does not list any workload where the Radeon R5 M240 outperforms the Quadro P2000. In terms of percentile ranking, the Radeon R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile versus the Quadro P2000's 35th percentile, but this is based on different benchmark sets and does not reflect a direct performance advantage. The Radeon's nearest rivals (GTX 675M, GTX 680M, T600) all score within 2.1% of it, whereas the Quadro P2000's nearest rivals (MX230, RTX A400, Radeon 760M, RX 6400) are all within 0.8%, indicating the Quadro P2000's average score is more tightly clustered with its peers.

The verdict from the data is simple: for anyone choosing between these two, the Quadro P2000 is the only rational pick for compute, rendering, or memory-intensive tasks. The Radeon R5 M240 belongs to an older, lower-performance generation and should only be considered if power consumption or physical footprint are the sole criteria, and even then, the database provides no TDP or dimension data for the AMD card to confirm such an advantage.