AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload type. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 takes both recorded head-to-head comparisons, but the margin tells the real story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card posts a score of 5051 against the NVIDIA Quadro K2000's 4071, a 24.1% advantage. That is a substantial gap, indicating the AMD part handles general-purpose compute tasks with noticeably more headroom. The Vulkan result is far tighter: 4262 for the AMD card versus 4191 for the NVIDIA card, a 1.7% edge that falls within typical run-to-run variance. In practical terms, both GPUs land in the same performance class for Vulkan workloads.

Looking at the broader database averages, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 carries an average benchmark score of 4657, placing it at the 27th percentile among all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 averages 3964, sitting at the 24th percentile. The AMD card also sits slightly ahead of its own nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684, a 0.6% gap) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, a 0.6% gap in the AMD's favor). The NVIDIA card's nearest rivals, meanwhile, cluster around the 3950 to 3980 range, with the AMD Radeon R5 M420 and NVIDIA GeForce 830M essentially matching it within 0.2%.

The use-case split is straightforward. If the workload is OpenCL compute, the AMD part wins decisively. If the workload is Vulkan rendering, the two are nearly interchangeable. The NVIDIA card has no recorded winning benchmark in the head-to-head set, so there is no data-driven scenario where it comes out ahead in these specific tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses the Jet chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip based on Kepler architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Both are end-of-life products, but their internal designs diverge significantly.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ markedly. The AMD chip packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip carries 1,270 million transistors across a 118 mm² die, with a density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA die is more than twice the physical size and holds nearly twice the transistor count, though AMD's denser layout partially compensates.

Compute resources favor NVIDIA on paper. The Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The Radeon R5 M320 counters with 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Clock speeds are not fully specified for the NVIDIA card, but the AMD part runs at a 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. The resulting throughput figures show NVIDIA ahead: the Quadro K2000 reaches 732.7 GFLOPS FP32, 30.53 GTexel/s texture rate, and 7.632 GPixel/s pixel rate. The AMD card delivers 547.2 GFLOPS FP32, 17.10 GTexel/s, and 6.840 GPixel/s.

Memory configuration is where the two diverge most sharply. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 ships with 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, producing 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth at a 1000 MHz memory clock (2 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth at the same 1000 MHz memory clock (4 Gbps effective). That is a 4x bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA, which likely explains why the OpenCL gap is not even larger given NVIDIA's raw compute lead.

Form factor and interface also differ. The AMD part is an integrated graphics processor with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The NVIDIA card is a single-slot discrete card with a 202 mm length, 111 mm height, PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, and outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The NVIDIA card carries a 51 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W power supply. The AMD part has no recorded TDP or power connector data.

API support is close. Both support DirectX 12 (AMD at 11_1 feature level, NVIDIA at 11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (AMD at 1.2.170, NVIDIA at 1.2.175). The NVIDIA card also has a recorded Geekbench Metal score of 3630, a test the AMD part does not appear in.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for OpenCL compute users: the AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins by 24.1% in Geekbench OpenCL, and its average benchmark score of 4657 sits 17.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro K2000's 3964. For anyone running general-purpose GPU compute through OpenCL, the AMD part is the better performer in this comparison.

For Vulkan workloads, the choice is essentially a toss-up. The AMD card leads by just 1.7% in Geekbench Vulkan, a margin small enough that driver versions or workload specifics could flip the result. The NVIDIA card's higher bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s) and larger compute resource pool (384 shading units versus 320) suggest it may handle memory-bound or geometry-heavy scenes differently, but the recorded Vulkan score does not reflect a decisive advantage either way.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 remains relevant for systems requiring a discrete, single-slot card with DisplayPort outputs and a modest 51 W TDP. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 is an integrated part with no discrete form factor, so physical installation requirements may dictate the choice regardless of performance. The NVIDIA card also has a recorded launch MSRP of 599 USD, which can be stated once as historical context.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4071 for the NVIDIA Quadro K2000, a 24.1% advantage.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 4262 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 4191 for the NVIDIA Quadro K2000, a 1.7% edge that is effectively a tie.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 16.00 GB/s from 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 was released in 2015, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 was released in 2013.

Q: What is the performance percentile of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 sits at the 24th percentile.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card support Apple's Metal API?

A: Yes. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has a recorded Geekbench Metal score of 3630. No Metal score is recorded for the AMD Radeon R5 M320.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark set contains two tests, and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins both. The results are worth examining individually because the margins tell different stories about each GPU's strengths.

Geekbench OpenCL is the headline result. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071. That is a 24.1% delta in favor of AMD. This is a substantial margin, especially considering the NVIDIA card's theoretical advantages in raw compute resources and memory bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, plus 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with only 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Yet in this OpenCL test, the AMD architecture delivers significantly better real-world results. This suggests the GCN 1.0 architecture handles the specific OpenCL workloads in the test more efficiently than Kepler, or that the AMD drivers extract better performance from the available hardware. The 24.1% figure is the single largest performance gap in this comparison.

Geekbench Vulkan is a much closer contest. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 4262, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4191. The delta is 1.7% in favor of AMD. Given that both cards are end-of-life products with mature drivers, this level of parity makes sense for a cross-vendor API like Vulkan. The NVIDIA card's higher bandwidth and extra shading units almost compensate for whatever efficiency advantage the AMD architecture holds in this workload. The 1.7% margin is within the range where benchmark noise or driver-specific optimizations could flip the result on a different driver version or test iteration.

Looking at the broader database context, the AMD card's average score of 4657 places it alongside the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684, a 0.6% gap) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, a 0.6% gap). The NVIDIA Quadro K2000's average of 3964 sits near the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, a 0.2% gap) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, a 0.3% gap). In other words, the two cards do not even compete in the same performance tier according to the database averages. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 lands in a class roughly 17.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000's neighborhood.

The takeaway from the head-to-head data is that the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the stronger GPU in this pairing, but the magnitude of its advantage depends entirely on the workload. OpenCL users get a clear win. Vulkan users get near-parity. And the NVIDIA Quadro K2000, despite its larger die, higher transistor count, and 4x memory bandwidth, cannot overcome the AMD part's efficiency in these recorded tests. The database shows two wins for AMD and zero for NVIDIA, but the Vulkan result hints that a different test suite could narrow or reverse that record.