AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898. That is a 16.2% advantage for the AMD part, which is a substantial margin in a compute workload like OpenCL.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Radeon R5 M255’s average benchmark score of 4788 places it in the 28th percentile of all GPUs. That average is pulled upward by its strong Vulkan result of 4925, which is notably higher than its OpenCL score. The Quadro 2000, by contrast, has only one recorded benchmark (OpenCL at 3898) and sits in the 23rd percentile. The difference in percentile ranking, 28 versus 23, reflects the AMD part’s higher overall throughput.

The nearest rivals for each card help contextualize these numbers. The Quadro 2000’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, which scores 3883, a mere 0.4% behind. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 (0.5% ahead of the Quadro 2000), and the Quadro 2000D scores 3930 (0.8% ahead). Even the GeForce GT 745M, at 3953, is only 1.4% faster. This suggests the Quadro 2000 sits in a very tight cluster of similarly performing GPUs, none of which are dramatically faster.

For the Radeon R5 M255, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which scores 4791, just 0.1% ahead. That is a remarkable pairing: the R5 M255 is within statistical noise of a flagship-class card in this particular benchmark aggregate. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752) trails by 0.8%, the GeForce 940MX (4844) leads by 1.2%, and the Radeon R8 M445DX (4727) is 1.3% behind. The R5 M255’s average score is thus competitive with a wide range of GPUs, from entry-level mobile parts to desktop high-end models, at least in the database’s recorded tests.

The head-to-head delta of -16.2% (where a negative value indicates the second item, the R5 M255, wins) is the only direct comparison, but it aligns with the percentile gap. The R5 M255 wins the single benchmark, and the database records zero wins for the Quadro 2000 in this matchup.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 3898 for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000, a 16.2% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Radeon R5 M255 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the database lists Vulkan 1.2.170 support for the R5 M255, and it has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925. The Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan entry.

Q: How does the Radeon R5 M255 compare to the GeForce 940MX?

A: The R5 M255’s average benchmark score is 4788, which is 1.2% behind the GeForce 940MX’s 4844. The two are very close in overall performance.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro 2000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The R5 M255 leads with 7.520 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 2000 manages 5.000 GPixel/s. AMD wins this metric.

Q: Is the Quadro 2000 more power-efficient?

A: The Quadro 2000 has a rated TDP of 62 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R5 M255 has no TDP listed in the database, so no direct comparison is possible.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is built on the Fermi architecture (chip GF106), fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture (chip Topaz), on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. The process shrink is significant: 40 nm versus 28 nm allows the AMD chip to pack more transistors into a smaller die.

Transistor counts reflect this. The Quadro 2000 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, giving a density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The R5 M255 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, achieving 12.4 million per square millimeter. That is more than double the density, which explains why the R5 M255 can offer more compute resources despite its smaller physical footprint.

The shading unit counts differ substantially. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. So AMD’s chip has twice the shader count but fewer texture units and half the ROPs. This trade-off explains the benchmark results: the R5 M255 wins in compute-heavy OpenCL, but its lower ROP count would likely hurt in pure rasterization if that were tested.

Clock speeds also differ. The Quadro 2000’s memory runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the R5 M255’s base clock is 925 MHz with a boost of 940 MHz, and its memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The AMD part has a much higher core clock, which contributes to its FP32 throughput of 721.9 GFLOPS versus the Quadro’s 480.0 GFLOPS. The R5 M255 also lists FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro 2000 has no FP16 entry.

The R5 M255 supports PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The newer standard offers more bandwidth per lane, though the x8 width may limit peak throughput compared to a full x16 slot. The R5 M255 also lists Vulkan 1.2.170 support, while the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan entry. Both support DirectX 12 (though the Quadro is 11_0, the R5 M255 is 12_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification. Here are the key fields where they do not match:

• Process node: Quadro 2000 is 40 nm, R5 M255 is 28 nm.
• Transistors: Quadro 2000 has 1,170 million, R5 M255 has 1,550 million.
• Die size: Quadro 2000 is 238 mm², R5 M255 is 125 mm².
• Transistor density: Quadro 2000 is 4.9M / mm², R5 M255 is 12.4M / mm².
• Memory size: Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB, R5 M255 has 2 GB.
• Memory type: Quadro 2000 uses GDDR5, R5 M255 uses DDR3.
• Memory clock: Quadro 2000 runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), R5 M255 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).
• Memory bandwidth: Quadro 2000 has 41.60 GB/s, R5 M255 has 32.00 GB/s.
• Shading units: Quadro 2000 has 192, R5 M255 has 384.
• TMUs: Quadro 2000 has 32, R5 M255 has 24.
• ROPs: Quadro 2000 has 16, R5 M255 has 8.
• Pixel rate: Quadro 2000 is 5.000 GPixel/s, R5 M255 is 7.520 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: Quadro 2000 is 20.00 GTexel/s, R5 M255 is 22.56 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Quadro 2000 is 480.0 GFLOPS, R5 M255 is 721.9 GFLOPS.
• FP16: Quadro 2000 has none, R5 M255 has 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: Quadro 2000 is 62 W, R5 M255 has no listed TDP.
• Slot width: Quadro 2000 is single-slot, R5 M255 has no listing.
• Power connectors: Quadro 2000 has none, R5 M255 has no listing.
• Suggested PSU: Quadro 2000 is 250 W, R5 M255 has no listing.
• Bus interface: Quadro 2000 is PCIe 2.0 x16, R5 M255 is PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Display outputs: Quadro 2000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, R5 M255 has no listing.
• Dimensions: Quadro 2000 is 178 mm long and 111 mm high, R5 M255 has no dimensions.
• DirectX: Quadro 2000 is 12 (11_0), R5 M255 is 12 (12_0).
• Vulkan: Quadro 2000 has none, R5 M255 has 1.2.170.
• Release date: Quadro 2000 was released December 23, 2010; R5 M255 was released October 11, 2014.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the faster GPU. It wins the sole head-to-head test by 16.2%, has a higher average benchmark score (4788 versus 3898), and sits in a higher percentile (28 versus 23). For any workload that relies on compute throughput, OpenCL, or Vulkan, the R5 M255 is the better choice.

The Quadro 2000’s advantages are not in raw performance but in specific professional attributes. It has a 62 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU, making it a low-power card for workstations. It also has a single-slot form factor with dual DisplayPort outputs and no power connectors, which suits dense workstation builds. Its GDDR5 memory offers higher bandwidth (41.60 GB/s) than the R5 M255’s DDR3 (32.00 GB/s), which could matter for bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

However, the R5 M255 counters with twice the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB), a much higher FP32 throughput (721.9 versus 480.0 GFLOPS), and support for Vulkan, which the Quadro lacks. The R5 M255 also has a newer architecture (GCN 3.0 versus Fermi) and a smaller, denser die.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the R5 M255 is the stronger performer in every recorded benchmark. The Quadro 2000 is end-of-life and has no modern API support beyond OpenGL 4.6, while the R5 M255 also lists DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The data supports picking the AMD card unless the specific workstation features of the Quadro (low TDP, single-slot, DVI output) are mandatory.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its OpenCL score of 4650 is 16.2% ahead of the Quadro 2000, and its Vulkan score of 4925 is even higher. The R5 M255 also leads in pixel rate (7.520 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s) and texture rate (22.56 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s), despite having fewer TMUs and ROPs. Its 384 shading units and higher clocks make it the clear choice for shader-bound workloads, FP32 math, and any application that can leverage Vulkan.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins in memory bandwidth. Its 41.60 GB/s exceeds the R5 M255’s 32.00 GB/s, which could benefit tasks that are bandwidth-limited rather than compute-limited. The Quadro also has a lower TDP (62 W) and a smaller power footprint, making it easier to cool and power in a workstation chassis. Its display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) are explicitly listed, while the R5 M255 has no display output information in the database.

For legacy compatibility, the Quadro 2000 has a longer track record: it was released in December 2010, nearly four years before the R5 M255. Its predecessor and successor are both NVIDIA families (Quadro FX Tesla and Quadro Kepler), whereas the R5 M255’s lineage is AMD’s Solar System to Polaris Mobile. If you need a card that is known to work in older PCIe 2.0 systems, the Quadro fits that role.

But for overall performance, the R5 M255 takes the win. It is 1.2% behind the GeForce 940MX and 0.1% behind the RTX 3080 12 GB in the database’s average scores, while the Quadro 2000 is only 0.4% ahead of the Radeon R5 Graphics. The R5 M255’s nearest rivals are consistently higher-scoring, which places it in a faster tier of GPUs. The Quadro 2000’s nearest rivals are all within 1.4% of its score, indicating it is at the bottom of its performance class.

In short: the R5 M255 wins compute, API support, and memory capacity. The Quadro 2000 wins bandwidth, power draw, and physical design. The database’s measurements favor the AMD card in every recorded test.