AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 are both end-of-life graphics products, but they occupy very different positions in the hardware landscape. The R5 M320 is a 28 nm integrated-class part from AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, while the Quadro 2000 is a 40 nm discrete workstation card built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the details of memory, bandwidth, and compute capacity reveal why each product was designed for a different purpose. This analysis relies exclusively on the database measurements and specifications for these two GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two products: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898 points. That places the AMD part ahead by 29.6 percent, a substantial margin in raw compute throughput. The R5 M320’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4657, while the Quadro 2000’s average is 3898, confirming that the AMD part holds the overall performance advantage.

Looking at the broader context, the R5 M320’s average score of 4657 sits near a cluster of competitors. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, matches it exactly at 4657 points, a delta of 0 percent. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4684, which is 0.6 percent higher than the R5 M320. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 4628, which is 0.6 percent lower, and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 4621, which is 0.8 percent lower. These tight margins indicate that the R5 M320 performs in a very consistent band relative to those GPUs.

The Quadro 2000, by contrast, sits in a different performance tier. Its average score of 3898 places it near the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, which scores 3883 points and is 0.4 percent lower. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919, which is 0.5 percent higher, and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930, which is 0.8 percent higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953, which is 1.4 percent higher. The Quadro 2000 is therefore at the lower end of its immediate rival group, whereas the R5 M320 sits near the middle of its own group.

The single head-to-head result is decisive: the R5 M320 wins the only shared benchmark by 29.6 percent. In terms of wins across all recorded comparisons, the R5 M320 has 1 win and the Quadro 2000 has 0 wins. There is no recorded test in which the Quadro 2000 outperforms the R5 M320. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the R5 M320 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000 sits at the 23rd percentile. That four-point gap in percentile rank is consistent with the 29.6 percent advantage in the OpenCL test.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins in raw compute performance as measured by Geekbench OpenCL. Its score of 5051 versus 3898 represents a 29.6 percent advantage, which is substantial. This advantage comes from a combination of factors visible in the specifications: the R5 M320 has 320 shading units compared to the Quadro 2000’s 192, and its FP32 throughput is 547.2 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS. The AMD part also has a higher pixel rate at 6.840 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, though the Quadro 2000 has a higher texture rate at 20.00 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. In terms of texture work, the Quadro 2000 actually has a 2.9 GTexel/s advantage, so applications that are heavily texture-bound could see relatively better performance from the NVIDIA part despite its lower overall compute score.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins in memory bandwidth. Its memory configuration uses GDDR5 across a 128-bit bus, yielding 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses DDR3 across a 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.00 GB/s. That is a 25.60 GB/s difference in favor of the Quadro 2000, which is more than 2.5 times the bandwidth of the AMD part. The Quadro 2000 also has 16 ROPs compared to the R5 M320’s 8 ROPs, which can help with fill-rate-bound workloads even though its pixel rate is lower. The larger 32 TMUs on the Quadro 2000, versus 20 on the R5 M320, also contribute to its texture rate advantage.

Memory capacity is another area where the Quadro 2000 does not win. The R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3, while the Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5. The AMD part has four times the memory capacity, which can be useful for holding larger datasets in GPU memory, though the Quadro 2000’s higher bandwidth means it can move data faster once it is resident.

The use-case split is therefore fairly clear: the R5 M320 is better for general compute workloads that benefit from higher shading-unit counts and greater FP32 throughput, while the Quadro 2000 is better for memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks and texture-heavy rendering, where its 41.60 GB/s bandwidth and 32 TMUs provide a structural advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip, codenamed Jet, contains 690 million transistors on a die size of 56 mm². That yields a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 uses the Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The chip, codenamed GF106, contains 1,170 million transistors on a die size of 238 mm², giving a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD part is therefore much denser, packing more than twice the transistor density into a much smaller die.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The R5 M320 uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with memory clocks at 1000 MHz and 2 Gbps effective. The Quadro 2000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocks at 650 MHz and 2.6 Gbps effective. Despite the older process and lower memory clock, the Quadro 2000 achieves 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth because of its wider bus and GDDR5 technology. The R5 M320’s 16.00 GB/s bandwidth is a significant limitation.

The compute configurations also differ sharply. The R5 M320 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part has 128 more shading units, but the NVIDIA part has 12 more TMUs and 8 more ROPs. This explains why the R5 M320 wins in FP32 compute and pixel rate, while the Quadro 2000 wins in texture rate.

The R5 M320 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support and DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The bus interfaces differ as well: the R5 M320 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The AMD part’s newer PCIe generation may help with data transfer efficiency, though its narrower x8 link reduces total bandwidth compared to a PCIe 2.0 x16 link.

The form factors are notably different. The R5 M320 is an integrated graphics processor, described as IGP slot width, with display outputs that are portable device dependent. The Quadro 2000 is a discrete single-slot card measuring 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and no power connectors. The R5 M320 has no recorded TDP, reflecting its integrated nature.

The release dates place these products roughly four and a half years apart. The Quadro 2000 was released in December 2010, while the R5 M320 was released in May 2015. The Quadro 2000’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler. The R5 M320’s predecessor is the Solar System generation, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows that the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the faster GPU in terms of compute performance. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 29.6 percent, has a higher average benchmark score (4657 versus 3898), and holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs (27th versus 23rd). For any workload that relies on shading units, FP32 throughput, or pixel rate, the R5 M320 is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000, however, offers capabilities that the R5 M320 does not. Its 41.60 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the R5 M320’s 16.00 GB/s. Its 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs give it an edge in texture rate and render output capacity. For workstation tasks that are memory-bandwidth-bound or texture-heavy, the Quadro 2000 may provide better real-world performance despite its lower raw compute score. Its discrete card form factor, with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, also makes it easier to integrate into a desktop workstation than an IGP.

The choice between these two GPUs depends on the workload. For general compute, OpenCL workloads, or any application that scales with shading units, the R5 M320 is the better option. For applications that need high memory bandwidth, such as large texture sets or certain CAD operations, the Quadro 2000’s GDDR5 memory and wider bus are preferable. The R5 M320 also has a significant memory capacity advantage at 4 GB versus 1024 MB, which matters for datasets that exceed 1 GB.

The launch MSRP for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 was 599 USD. The R5 M320 has no recorded launch MSRP, reflecting its integrated nature.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898, giving the AMD part a 29.6 percent advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The R5 M320 has an average benchmark score of 4657, while the Quadro 2000 has an average of 3898. The R5 M320’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, matches it exactly at 4657 points.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 16.00 GB/s. The Quadro 2000 achieves this with GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the R5 M320 uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the shading unit counts?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 320 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units. The R5 M320 also has higher FP32 throughput at 547.2 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has better texture performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has a texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s with 32 TMUs, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 has a texture rate of 17.10 GTexel/s with 20 TMUs. The Quadro 2000 leads in texture throughput.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory. The R5 M320 offers four times the capacity, though with lower bandwidth.