AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from the early 2010s that occupy surprisingly similar territory in the database, and the recorded data makes this pairing more interesting than it first appears. On paper the Quadro is the larger, more serious silicon: a Kepler-based workstation part with more shading units, more render output units, and faster GDDR5 memory. Yet the benchmark results tell the opposite story, with the small Radeon winning both head-to-head comparisons. The following analysis walks through where each card wins, why the architecture differs so much in outcome despite shared 28 nm construction, and which buyer each one suits.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head record is lopsided. The Radeon R5 M255 wins both shared tests in the database, and it wins them with different margins that reveal something about driver and API behavior.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the R5 M255 scores 4650 against 4587 for the K2100M, a 1.4 percent advantage. That is effectively a tie, and it suggests that when both GPUs run a general-purpose compute workload through the same API layer, the Quadro's hardware advantages roughly cancel out against the Radeon's higher clocks. The K2100M carries 576 shading units to the Radeon's 384, but it runs them at 667 MHz while the Radeon pushes 940 MHz boost. Nearly equal OpenCL results from those two very different configurations is the kind of coincidence that invites a closer look at the second test.

Geekbench Vulkan is where the gap opens. The R5 M255 scores 4925 against 4343 for the K2100M, a 13.4 percent win for AMD. A double-digit lead in a modern graphics API, following a dead heat in compute, points toward software support rather than raw hardware. The R5 M255 reports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, while the K2100M tops out at feature level 11_0 within DirectX 12. That lower feature level, combined with the age of the Kepler driver stack, is a plausible explanation for the Vulkan deficit. Notably, the K2100M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 3524 in the database, a test the AMD card does not record, so cross-platform coverage differs between the two entries.

Where does the Quadro win anything? Not in the recorded benchmarks, but it does hold measurable hardware leads that the compute tests do not exercise heavily. Its pixel rate of 8.004 GPixel/s beats the Radeon's 7.520 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 32.02 GTexel/s is well ahead of 22.56 GTexel/s, thanks to 48 texture mapping units and 16 render output units against 24 and 8 respectively. Its memory bandwidth of 48.13 GB/s is half again the Radeon's 32.00 GB/s. In fill-rate-bound and bandwidth-bound scenarios, the K2100M has the machinery to come out ahead even though the recorded benchmark suite does not capture it.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs were fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, which makes the divergence in how they use that transistor budget the central story of this comparison.

The Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S chip on the Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kepler-M generation. It packs 2,540 million transistors onto a 221 mm² die, giving a density of 11.5M transistors per square millimeter. The Radeon R5 M255 uses the much smaller Topaz chip on GCN 3.0, from the Gem System (R5 M200) generation, with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die at 12.4M per square millimeter. The Quadro's die is nearly twice the area and carries roughly a thousand million more transistors, yet it delivers a peak FP32 throughput of 768.4 GFLOPS against the Radeon's 721.9 GFLOPS. That is a difference of under seven percent despite the massive silicon disadvantage, and it explains why the little Radeon competes so well: GCN 3.0 simply extracts more compute per transistor than Kepler does in this matchup.

The R5 M255 also records FP16 throughput of 721.9 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the K2100M lists no FP16 figure at all. Half-precision workloads are therefore a documented strength only on the AMD side.

Memory is where the philosophies split. The Quadro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, clocked at 752 MHz for 3 Gbps effective, yielding 48.13 GB/s. The Radeon uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128 bit bus width, at 1000 MHz for 2 Gbps effective, yielding just 32.00 GB/s. Same capacity, same bus, but the Quadro's GDDR5 delivers substantially more bandwidth, and that is the K2100M's most concrete hardware advantage.

Clocking strategies differ too. The Radeon runs 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost, a narrow range. The Quadro sits at a flat 667 MHz for both base and boost, a conservative workstation-style clock that prioritizes consistency. Interface-wise, the Quadro is an MXM-A (3.0) module with no power connectors and a stated 55 W TDP, while the Radeon connects over PCIe 3.0 x8 and records no TDP or power figures in the database. Display outputs for the K2100M are listed as portable device dependent; the Radeon entry records none.

Feature support slightly favors AMD at the API level: DirectX 12 feature level 12_0 versus 11_0, and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.2.175 actually nudges the other way, a curiosity showing the two driver stacks were last updated at nearly the same point. Both report OpenGL 4.6. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255. It won both shared tests, taking Geekbench OpenCL 4650 to 4587 and Geekbench Vulkan 4925 to 4343.

Q: Why does the Quadro lose despite having more shading units?

A: The K2100M has 576 shading units but runs at only 667 MHz, while the R5 M255 has 384 units at up to 940 MHz. The results nearly converge in OpenCL, and the Radeon pulls well ahead in Vulkan, indicating clock speed and newer GCN 3.0 architecture offset the Quadro's unit count.

Q: Does either card support modern graphics features?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the R5 M255 reaches feature level 12_0 while the K2100M stops at 11_0. Vulkan support is nearly identical at version 1.2.170 for AMD and 1.2.175 for NVIDIA.

Q: How do they compare against the broader GPU landscape?

A: The R5 M255 sits in the 28th percentile of all GPUs in the database with an average score of 4788, and the K2100M sits in the 25th percentile at 4151. Both are low-end entries by current standards.

Q: Which has more memory bandwidth?

A: The K2100M, clearly. Its GDDR5 delivers 48.13 GB/s against 32.00 GB/s for the R5 M255's DDR3, despite both using a 128 bit bus and 2 GB capacity.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life. The R5 M255 was released in October 2014 and was succeeded by Polaris Mobile; the K2100M dates to July 2013 and was succeeded by Quadro Maxwell-M.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two entries differ.

| Field | AMD Radeon R5 M255 | NVIDIA Quadro K2100M |

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

| Chip | Topaz | GK106S |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M200) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 2,540 million |

| Die size | 125 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.4M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 925 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Boost clock | 940 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory speed | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Bandwidth | 32.00 GB/s | 48.13 GB/s |

| Shading units | 384 | 576 |

| TMUs | 24 | 48 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 7.520 GPixel/s | 8.004 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 22.56 GTexel/s | 32.02 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 721.9 GFLOPS | 768.4 GFLOPS |

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

| TDP | Not recorded | 55 W |

| Slot width | Not recorded | MXM Module |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release date | October 2014 | July 2013 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Maxwell-M |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests appear in both entries, and the AMD card sweeps them.

Geekbench OpenCL is the closer fight. The R5 M255 posts 4650 and the K2100M posts 4587, a 1.4 percent edge for AMD. Given that the Quadro holds the theoretical FP32 lead at 768.4 GFLOPS versus 721.9 GFLOPS, a near-tie here raises a question: is the Radeon's GCN 3.0 design simply more efficient at converting theoretical throughput into OpenCL results, or is Kepler's flat 667 MHz clock leaving performance unused? The database cannot answer directly, but the pattern repeats in the second test.

Geekbench Vulkan is decisive. The R5 M255 scores 4925 to the K2100M's 4343, a 13.4 percent margin. For a card with half the ROPs, half the TMUs, and two-thirds less memory bandwidth to win a graphics API test this comfortably, the explanation almost certainly lies in software. The feature level gap, 12_0 against 11_0, supports that reading. Kepler's driver stack was aging by the time these Vulkan figures were recorded, while GCN remained a first-class citizen.

Context from each card's rival set sharpens the picture. The R5 M255's average score of 4788 places it within a point of cards like the GeForce 940MX (4844 average, about 1.2 percent ahead of it) and slightly ahead of the Radeon R5 M335 (4752) and the Radeon R8 M445DX (4727). The K2100M's 4151 average sits in similar company on its side: the Radeon R5 M330 averages 4170, the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4193, and the Intel HD Graphics 630 4075. The Quadro's neighborhood includes integrated graphics, which frames its standing bluntly.

The Verdict

For anyone choosing based purely on the recorded data, the Radeon R5 M255 is the faster GPU. It wins every shared benchmark, leads by a wide 13.4 percent in Vulkan, offers the higher DirectX feature level, records FP16 capability the Quadro lacks, and does all this from a die less than two-thirds the size. Its average benchmark score of 4788 against 4151, and its 28th percentile standing against 25th, confirm the advantage across the database rather than in a single test.

The Quadro K2100M still has a case, but it rests on hardware the benchmarks do not measure. Its 48.13 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth, its 16 ROPs and 48 TMUs, and its higher pixel and texture rates make it the stronger card on paper for fill-rate-heavy or bandwidth-hungry work. As an MXM workstation module with a defined 55 W TDP, it also targets a different integration path than the PCIe-based Radeon. The data shows a small, efficient AMD design outperforming a bigger NVIDIA one in practice; buyers who need the recorded scores should take the R5 M255, and only those with specific needs matched to the Quadro's bandwidth and fill-rate hardware have a reason to accept the slower benchmark results.