AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along API boundaries. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 records scores in three different tests, while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 has results in only two. The two cards share the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, and in both cases the AMD part takes the win. The Radeon R5 M255 leads by 12.5% in OpenCL and 14.9% in Vulkan, which gives it a clean 2-0 record in the direct head-to-head comparisons.

The Quadro K2000's only exclusive benchmark is Geekbench Metal, where it posts a score of 3630. That test does not appear in the Radeon R5 M255's recorded results, so it does not factor into the head-to-head tally. The overall average benchmark score reflects this split: the Quadro K2000 averages 3964 across its three tests, while the Radeon R5 M255 averages 4788 across its two tests. The Radeon's average sits roughly 20.8% higher, a gap driven entirely by its superior showing in the shared workloads.

The percentile rankings reinforce the same direction. The Radeon R5 M255 lands at the 28th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K2000 sits at the 24th percentile. Neither card is near the top of the field, but the AMD part consistently edges ahead in every category where both have recorded data. For compute-oriented tasks using OpenCL or Vulkan, the Radeon R5 M255 is the clear choice based on the measured results. The Quadro K2000's Metal score does not have a counterpart on the AMD side, so users targeting Metal workloads would need to rely on that single data point without a direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies and different generations. The Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip with NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip with AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Both share the same manufacturing node and foundry, but the underlying designs diverge significantly.

Transistor counts and die sizes tell part of the story. The Radeon R5 M255 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K2000 has 1,270 million transistors on a smaller 118 mm² die, resulting in 10.8 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is both larger and denser, though the difference in absolute die size is modest at 7 mm².

The shading units are identical at 384, but the rest of the execution pipeline differs. The Quadro K2000 has 32 texture mapping units and 16 ROPs, while the Radeon R5 M255 has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. That gives the NVIDIA part a 33% advantage in texture units and a 100% advantage in ROPs. The pixel rate comes out nearly even: 7.632 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 7.520 GPixel/s for the Radeon. The texture rate, however, favors NVIDIA more clearly at 30.53 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s, a 35.3% lead.

Memory configurations also diverge. Both cards have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the Quadro K2000 uses GDDR5 at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M255 uses DDR3 at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective and only 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. That is a full 100% difference in memory bandwidth, a substantial gap that the AMD card must overcome elsewhere. The Radeon does have explicit base and boost clocks of 925 MHz and 940 MHz, while the Quadro K2000 has no recorded base or boost clock, only its memory clock.

The feature sets also differ in API support. The Quadro K2000 lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon R5 M255 lists DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part supports a higher DirectX feature level, while NVIDIA's Vulkan version is slightly newer. The Radeon also records FP16 performance at 721.9 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, whereas the Quadro K2000 has no FP16 entry. The Quadro's FP32 is 732.7 GFLOPS, marginally ahead of the Radeon's 721.9 GFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparisons come from two Geekbench tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650 against the Quadro K2000's 4071. The delta is 12.5% in favor of AMD. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Radeon scores 4925 against the Quadro's 4191, a 14.9% advantage. Both results point the same way, but the Vulkan gap is notably wider, suggesting the AMD architecture scales better in that API.

The Quadro K2000's nearest rivals in the database put its performance in context. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M averages 3957, just 0.2% behind the Quadro. The AMD Radeon R5 M420 averages 3956, also 0.2% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M averages 3953, 0.3% behind. On the other side, the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 averages 3977, which is 0.3% ahead of the Quadro. The Quadro sits in a tightly packed cluster where the entire spread is under 1%.

The Radeon R5 M255's nearest rivals show a different picture. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB averages 4791, just 0.1% ahead of the Radeon. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 averages 4752, which is 0.8% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX averages 4844, 1.2% ahead. The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX averages 4727, 1.3% behind. The Radeon R5 M255 sits near the middle of this group, with its closest competitor being a high-end desktop card from several generations later, an odd pairing that speaks to the benchmark's aggregate nature.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 averages 4788 across its two recorded tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 averages 3964 across its three tests. The Radeon's average is roughly 20.8% higher.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 64.00 GB/s bandwidth using GDDR5, while the Radeon R5 M255 has 32.00 GB/s using DDR3. Both use a 128-bit bus and 2 GB capacity, but the Quadro's memory bandwidth is exactly double.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Radeon R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The AMD card supports the higher feature level.

Q: Which card wins the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Radeon R5 M255 scores 4925 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the Quadro K2000's 4191, a 14.9% advantage for AMD.

Q: Do both cards have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both have 384 shading units. However, the Quadro K2000 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, while the Radeon R5 M255 has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Radeon R5 M255 has 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Quadro K2000 has 10.8 million. Both are on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | AMD Radeon R5 M255 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | GK107 | Topaz |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 940 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz, 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 32.00 GB/s |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 7.520 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 22.56 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 732.7 GFLOPS | 721.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 51 W | Not recorded |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not recorded |

| Power Connectors | None | Not recorded |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Not recorded |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2014-10-11 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not recorded |

The Verdict

The recorded data gives a straightforward answer for raw compute performance: the AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins both shared benchmarks. In OpenCL, it leads by 12.5%. In Vulkan, it leads by 14.9%. Its average score of 4788 places it at the 28th percentile, four points above the Quadro K2000's 24th percentile. Users who prioritize OpenCL or Vulkan compute workloads should pick the Radeon R5 M255 based on these measurements.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 does have specific strengths that the benchmark averages do not capture. Its memory bandwidth is double that of the Radeon, at 64.00 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s. Its texture rate is 35.3% higher, and its ROP count is doubled. These factors could matter for certain workloads, particularly those sensitive to memory throughput or fill rate, even though the aggregate compute scores favor AMD. The Quadro also has a recorded Metal score of 3630, which may be relevant for macOS or Metal-specific applications.

The Radeon R5 M255 counters with a higher transistor count, a denser design, and explicit boost clock behavior. Its FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 721.9 GFLOPS, a capability the Quadro does not record. The DirectX 12 (12_0) feature level is also higher on the AMD side.

For most general-purpose compute tasks measured by the database, the Radeon R5 M255 is the superior choice. The 14.9% Vulkan win and 12.5% OpenCL win are consistent and decisive. Users with specific needs around texture processing, memory bandwidth, or Metal support might prefer the Quadro K2000, but the benchmark record does not show those advantages translating into higher overall scores. The data points to AMD for performance, with NVIDIA retaining niche advantages in specific hardware features.