AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of two very different products with a single decisive winner in the recorded OpenCL test. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 takes the only head-to-head benchmark victory, finishing 15.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D in Geekbench OpenCL, with scores of 4650 against 3919.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D does not register a single benchmark win in the database. Its average benchmark score of 3919 places it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, meaning roughly three-quarters of recorded graphics cards outperform it. The AMD Radeon R5 M255, by contrast, sits in the 28th percentile with an average score of 4788, a 22.2% improvement over the Quadro's average.

For use-case selection, the AMD card is the stronger compute candidate for OpenCL workloads. Its additional Vulkan benchmark result of 4925 further confirms its advantage in general-purpose GPU compute. The Quadro K2000D lacks any Vulkan benchmark record, so its capability in that API remains unmeasured in the database.

The NVIDIA card does retain professional positioning through its display output configuration, offering 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the AMD part lists no display outputs. For workstation environments requiring multiple legacy DVI monitors, the Quadro holds an ergonomic advantage despite its compute deficit. However, for raw throughput, the Radeon R5 M255 is the clear choice.

The single-slot form factor and 250 W suggested PSU of the Quadro make it a simpler fit in constrained chassis, while the AMD card's power profile is unrecorded. Neither card offers modern ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those features.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 15.7% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D's 3919.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R5 M255 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon R5 M255 sits 0.8% above the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752), 1.3% above the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727), and 1.2% below the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844). Its average score of 4788 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which records 4791, a delta of only 0.1%.

Q: What is the Quadro K2000D's standing among its closest competitors?

A: The Quadro K2000D trails the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D by 0.3% (3930 vs 3919) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M by 0.9% (3953 vs 3919). It edges out the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 by 0.5% (3898) and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics by 0.9% (3883).

Q: Does the AMD card support any API that the NVIDIA card does not?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, and the AMD card lists Vulkan 1.2.170 versus the NVIDIA card's Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D offers 64.00 GB/s bandwidth using GDDR5 memory, exactly double the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 32.00 GB/s with DDR3 memory. Both use a 128-bit memory bus and 2 GB capacity.

Q: What are the pixel and texture throughput differences?

A: The NVIDIA card achieves 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s. The AMD card delivers 7.520 GPixel/s and 22.56 GTexel/s. NVIDIA leads in both metrics, by 1.5% in pixel rate and 35.3% in texture rate.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon R5 M255 dominates with a score of 4650 against the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D's 3919. That 731-point gap translates to a 15.7% advantage for AMD, a substantial margin in GPU compute workloads.

The AMD card's Vulkan score of 4925, while not directly compared against the Quadro (which has no Vulkan result), reinforces its compute superiority. The Quadro's OpenCL result falls below the AMD's Vulkan result by 25.7%, indicating the NVIDIA card would likely struggle in modern API workloads.

In average benchmark terms, the AMD card's 4788 average represents a 22.2% lead over the Quadro's 3919. This consistency across recorded tests suggests the AMD advantage is not isolated to a single workload but reflects genuine architectural throughput differences.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D does hold narrow leads in specific throughput metrics. Its texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s exceeds the AMD's 22.56 GTexel/s by 35.3%, a significant margin driven by the NVIDIA card's 32 texture mapping units versus AMD's 24. Pixel rate is nearly identical, with NVIDIA at 7.632 GPixel/s and AMD at 7.520 GPixel/s, a 1.5% difference.

However, these rasterization advantages do not translate into OpenCL performance. The AMD card's 384 shading units match NVIDIA's 384, but the AMD architecture extracts better compute efficiency from them, delivering 4650 OpenCL points versus 3919 despite very similar FP32 figures: 721.9 GFLOPS for AMD versus 732.7 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

The AMD card also offers a Vulkan benchmark that the NVIDIA card lacks entirely, suggesting better forward-looking API support. Given that Vulkan is increasingly important in both gaming and compute, this absence is notable for the Quadro.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category.

Memory: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, delivering 64.00 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective speed, halving bandwidth to 32.00 GB/s on the same 128-bit bus.

Clock speeds: The AMD card lists a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 940 MHz. The NVIDIA card has no recorded base or boost clock, only memory clock data.

Core configuration: Both have 384 shading units, but NVIDIA employs 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, while AMD uses 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This gives NVIDIA a 33.3% TMU advantage and a 100% ROP advantage.

Throughput: NVIDIA leads in pixel rate (7.632 vs 7.520 GPixel/s), texture rate (30.53 vs 22.56 GTexel/s), and FP32 (732.7 vs 721.9 GFLOPS). AMD matches FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while NVIDIA has no recorded FP16 capability.

Bus interface: NVIDIA uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The newer PCIe 3.0 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the x8 configuration halves the lane count.

Physical specifications: The NVIDIA card is 202 mm long, 111 mm tall, single-slot, with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The AMD card has no recorded dimensions, slot width, power connectors, or PSU recommendation.

Display outputs: NVIDIA provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. AMD lists no display outputs.

API support: NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD card has full DirectX 12 feature level 12_0, while NVIDIA is limited to 11_0.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK107 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The GPU belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Topaz chip, also fabricated by TSMC on 28 nm. It packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, resulting in 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a 22% higher transistor count and 5.9% larger die than the NVIDIA part. The AMD GPU is part of the Gem System (R5 M200) generation, succeeding Solar System and preceding Polaris Mobile.

The transistor density difference, 12.4M per mm² versus 10.8M per mm², reflects AMD's denser design despite the same process node. The GCN 3.0 architecture employs a different shader organization than Kepler, which explains the AMD card's better OpenCL efficiency despite nearly identical FP32 throughput.

Both architectures lack ray tracing cores and tensor cores, consistent with their 2013-2014 release windows. The NVIDIA card launched on 2013-02-28, while the AMD card arrived on 2014-10-11, a 20-month gap that explains the AMD part's architectural maturity.

The NVIDIA card's Kepler architecture was designed for professional workstation workloads, emphasizing geometry processing and display flexibility. The AMD GCN 3.0 architecture was built for general-purpose compute, with asynchronous compute capabilities that benefit OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. This architectural philosophy difference is the root cause of the benchmark disparity.

Memory technology also reflects architectural priorities. NVIDIA paired Kepler with GDDR5 to achieve 64 GB/s bandwidth, while AMD used DDR3, halving bandwidth to 32 GB/s. Despite this bandwidth disadvantage, the AMD card's compute architecture still outperforms in OpenCL, suggesting GCN 3.0's compute efficiency compensates for memory limitations.

The PCIe interface differences, NVIDIA's PCIe 2.0 x16 versus AMD's PCIe 3.0 x8, reflect the technology generations. PCIe 3.0 x8 provides equivalent bandwidth to PCIe 2.0 x16, so this is not a practical differentiator.