AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 leads in the recorded OpenCL test with a score of 4650, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. The AMD part also holds an average benchmark score of 4788 across two tests, compared to 3930 for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do these two cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 2000D sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953) and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956), and it is 0.3% ahead of the Quadro K2000D (3919). The R5 M255 is 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752), 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727), and trails the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844) by 1.2%.

Q: What is the architectural generation gap between the two?

A: The Quadro 2000D uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process, while the R5 M255 uses GCN 3.0 on a 28 nm process. The R5 M255 also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support recorded.

Q: Which card has more memory and what type?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 comes with 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has 1 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the release dates and production statuses?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D was released on October 4, 2011, and the AMD Radeon R5 M255 was released on October 11, 2014. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000D have a launch MSRP?

A: Yes, the Quadro 2000D had a launch MSRP of 599 USD. No launch MSRP is recorded for the R5 M255.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly by workload and era. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is a professional workstation card from 2011, built for stability and display output, while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is a mobile-oriented part from 2014 with a more modern feature set. In raw compute, the R5 M255 wins the only shared benchmark: it scores 4650 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3930 for the Quadro 2000D, a 15.5% advantage. That is the sole head-to-head result recorded, and it belongs to the AMD card.

The AMD part also wins on compute density and API support. It offers Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro 2000D lacks entirely, and its DirectX support is 12 (12_0) compared to 12 (11_0) for the NVIDIA card. The R5 M255 has a higher pixel rate at 7.520 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, and higher texture rate at 22.56 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. It also delivers more FP32 throughput: 721.9 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS.

The Quadro 2000D, however, wins on memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory provides 41.60 GB/s, which is 30% higher than the R5 M255's 32.00 GB/s. It also has a lower TDP at 62 W, while the R5 M255 has no TDP recorded. For any application that is bandwidth-limited, the Quadro has a structural edge despite being older. The NVIDIA card also has fixed display outputs (2x DVI), while the AMD card lists none, making the Quadro the practical choice for multi-monitor workstation setups.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The Quadro 2000D uses Fermi, NVIDIA's architecture from 2010, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 4.9 million per mm². Its configuration includes 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs.

The Radeon R5 M255 uses GCN 3.0, AMD's third-generation Graphics Core Next architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It fits 1,550 million transistors onto a smaller 125 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.4 million per mm², more than double the Quadro's density. Its compute layout is different: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD card has twice the shading units but fewer TMUs and half the ROPs.

The memory subsystems differ in type and speed. The Quadro uses GDDR5 at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the R5 M255 uses DDR3 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Both have a 128-bit bus, but the Quadro's GDDR5 gives it higher bandwidth. The R5 M255 compensates with a newer PCIe interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 on the Quadro.

The AMD card also supports half-precision FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning its FP16 throughput is also 721.9 GFLOPS. The Quadro has no FP16 capability recorded. The R5 M255 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The recorded specification differences between the two cards are substantial. The Quadro 2000D has a 40 nm process node, while the R5 M255 uses 28 nm. Transistor count is 1,170 million versus 1,550 million, and die size is 238 mm² versus 125 mm². Transistor density is 4.9M per mm² versus 12.4M per mm².

Clock speeds differ: the Quadro has no base or boost clock recorded, only a memory clock of 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). The R5 M255 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 940 MHz, with a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is 1024 MB for the Quadro versus 2 GB for the R5 M255. Memory type is GDDR5 versus DDR3, with bandwidth at 41.60 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s. Shading units are 192 versus 384, TMUs are 32 versus 24, and ROPs are 16 versus 8.

Pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s, texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 480.0 GFLOPS versus 721.9 GFLOPS. The Quadro has a TDP of 62 W, while the R5 M255 has no TDP recorded. The Quadro is single-slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W; the R5 M255 has none of those fields recorded.

Bus interface differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 2x DVI on the Quadro, with none recorded for the AMD card. The Quadro has physical dimensions of 178 mm length and 111 mm height; the AMD card has no dimensions recorded. DirectX support is 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_0). Release dates are October 4, 2011 versus October 11, 2014. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the R5 M255 has none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one shared benchmark is recorded in the database: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. The delta is 15.5% in favor of the AMD card. This is a decisive single-test result, but it does not cover gaming, professional workloads, or compute tasks beyond OpenCL.

The R5 M255 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925, a test the Quadro cannot run due to lacking Vulkan support. Its average benchmark score is 4788, which places it at the 28th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Quadro's average score is 3930, placing it at the 23rd percentile. That 5-percentile gap reflects the AMD card's overall edge in recorded compute performance.

The nearest rival data reinforces the separation. The Quadro 2000D is effectively tied with the Quadro K2000D (3919, a 0.3% difference) and the GeForce GT 745M (3953, a 0.6% difference). The R5 M255 sits in a slightly higher performance tier, near the GeForce 940MX (4844, a 1.2% gap) and ahead of the Radeon R5 M335 (4752, a 0.8% gain). In context, the R5 M255 competes with low-end mobile GPUs from 2015-2016, while the Quadro 2000D competes with entry-level workstation cards from 2012-2013.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon R5 M255 as the stronger compute part. Its 15.5% OpenCL lead over the Quadro 2000D is unambiguous, and its Vulkan support, higher FP32 throughput, and larger memory capacity give it a modern feature set that the Fermi-based Quadro cannot match. The R5 M255 belongs in a system where OpenCL or Vulkan compute matters, or where 2 GB of memory is needed for larger textures or datasets.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has two clear advantages: memory bandwidth and power draw. Its GDDR5 memory delivers 41.60 GB/s, a 30% advantage over the R5 M255's 32.00 GB/s, which can matter in bandwidth-sensitive professional tasks. Its 62 W TDP is also a defined figure, useful for system builders who need to plan power budgets precisely. The Quadro also has fixed display outputs (2x DVI), making it the practical choice for a multi-monitor office or CAD setup where compute performance is secondary.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. The R5 M255 wins the recorded benchmark and offers better API coverage, making it the default pick for general-purpose compute or any Vulkan-based application. The Quadro 2000D is the safer choice for legacy workstation use, where GDDR5 bandwidth and known power consumption are priorities, and where the lack of Vulkan support is irrelevant. The data does not support the Quadro for raw performance; it supports it for specific professional scenarios where its memory subsystem and display outputs align with the task.