AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. That is a 28.5% advantage for the AMD part, and the Radeon wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database.

To put that margin in context, the Radeon's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4657. Its nearest rival in the database, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, also averages 4657, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 sits 0.6% below at 4684, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is 0.6% above at 4628. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M trails by 0.8% at 4621. The Radeon's OpenCL result of 5051 is clearly above its own average, meaning this particular workload plays to its strengths.

The Quadro 2000D's average score is 3930, identical to its sole benchmark result. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, scores 3919, putting the 2000D 0.3% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M is 0.6% above the 2000D at 3953, and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 sits 0.7% higher at 3956. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M also lands 0.7% above at 3957. Within its own peer group, the Quadro 2000D is competitive, but that peer group sits well below the Radeon's performance tier.

The 28.5% gap in OpenCL is substantial. The Radeon also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262, a result the Quadro cannot match because the database records no Vulkan support for it.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins the only benchmark where both GPUs have recorded results. Its OpenCL score of 5051 beats the Quadro's 3930 by 28.5%. It also has a Vulkan score of 4262, which gives it a second measurable workload advantage, even though no direct comparison exists for that test.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D does not win any benchmark in the database. It has just one recorded result, the OpenCL score of 3930, and that result is lower than the Radeon's OpenCL figure. The Quadro's only statistical strength is its position within its own nearest rival cluster, where it sits 0.3% above the Quadro K2000D. That is a narrow margin against a similarly aged workstation card, not a meaningful advantage over the Radeon.

For compute-oriented workloads that rely on OpenCL, the data points clearly to the AMD part. For Vulkan-based tasks, the Radeon is the only option with a recorded score. The Quadro's 2x DVI outputs and single-slot form factor may suit specific display configurations, but in raw benchmark performance, it has no wins to claim.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses the Jet chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm. It contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip based on Fermi architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but at 40 nm. It packs 1,170 million transistors onto a 238 mm² die, for a density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The Radeon's newer process allows roughly 2.5 times the transistor density despite having fewer total transistors.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The Radeon comes with 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s. The Quadro's memory bandwidth is 2.6 times higher, a direct result of its wider bus and faster GDDR5 memory. The Radeon's memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the Quadro's runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective).

Compute resource allocation also differs. The Radeon has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon leads in shading units but trails in TMUs and ROPs. Pixel rate favors the Radeon at 6.840 GPixel/s versus the Quadro's 5.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors the Quadro at 20.00 GTexel/s versus the Radeon's 17.10 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors the Radeon at 547.2 GFLOPS versus the Quadro's 480.0 GFLOPS.

Interface and power characteristics diverge as well. The Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with display outputs described as portable device dependent. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm by 111 mm, has no power connectors, and carries a 62 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU. The Radeon has no recorded TDP. Both support DirectX 12, with the Radeon at version 11_1 and the Quadro at 11_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon supports Vulkan 1.2.170; the Quadro has no recorded Vulkan support.

The Verdict

The data supports the AMD Radeon R5 M320 for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 5051 beats the Quadro 2000D's 3930 by 28.5%, and it is the only one of the two with a recorded Vulkan result. Its 4 GB memory capacity and newer 28 nm process give it structural advantages in memory size and transistor density.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D remains relevant only for specific use cases. Its 41.60 GB/s memory bandwidth is 2.6 times higher than the Radeon's, which could benefit memory-intensive workloads that fit within its 1024 MB frame buffer. Its single-slot design, 2x DVI outputs, and 62 W TDP with no power connectors make it easier to integrate into constrained systems. Its 16 ROPs and 32 TMUs outnumber the Radeon's 8 ROPs and 20 TMUs, which may help in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

For general benchmark performance, the Radeon is the clear choice. For legacy workstation display configurations requiring DVI output and a low-profile power footprint, the Quadro has merits that the benchmark scores do not capture. The recorded data cannot justify picking the Quadro on performance alone, but its interface and memory bandwidth profile give it a narrow niche.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051, which is 28.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D's 3930.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D support Vulkan?

A: No Vulkan support is recorded for the Quadro 2000D. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has a Vulkan score of 4262.

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

A: The Quadro 2000D has 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth from its 128-bit GDDR5 memory, while the Radeon R5 M320 has 16.00 GB/s from its 64-bit DDR3 memory.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each GPU?

A: The Radeon R5 M320 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the Quadro 2000D has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Radeon R5 M320 has 320 shading units, compared to the Quadro 2000D's 192 shading units.

Q: What is the power requirement for the Quadro 2000D?

A: The Quadro 2000D has a 62 W TDP and a suggested 250 W PSU. No TDP is recorded for the Radeon R5 M320.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M320 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D |

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

| Chip | Jet | GF106 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,170 million |

| Die size | 56 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.3M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) |

| Shading units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 6.840 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 17.10 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 547.2 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not recorded | 62 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | Not recorded |

| Release date | 2015-05-04 | 2011-10-04 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 599 USD |