AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively in favor of the AMD Radeon R5 M320. The AMD part scores 5051 points against 3919 for the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, a margin of 28.9%. This is a substantial gap in raw compute throughput for general-purpose GPU workloads, placing the R5 M320 well ahead of its rival in this specific test.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the significance of this lead. The R5 M320's average benchmark score of 4657 places it in a cluster with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (delta of 0%), the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (0.6% ahead). The Quadro K2000D, with an average of 3919, sits closer to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (0.3% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (0.9% behind). The R5 M320 is effectively competing in a higher performance tier, and the 28.9% delta in the OpenCL test is consistent with that tier gap. In short, the data shows a single, decisive win for the AMD part, and no benchmark where the NVIDIA card emerges ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 is built on the Graphics Core Next 1.0 architecture (chip codename "Jet"), while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D uses the Kepler architecture (chip GK107). Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The die characteristics diverge significantly. AMD's Jet chip contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². NVIDIA's GK107 packs 1,270 million transistors onto a 118 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 10.8 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip is fundamentally larger and more complex, but the AMD design is more tightly packed.

The execution resources tell a mixed story. The Quadro K2000D has more shading units (384 vs. 320), more texture mapping units (32 vs. 20), and double the render output units (16 vs. 8). This configuration gives NVIDIA the edge in fill-rate-bound tasks: the K2000D produces 7.632 GPixel/s of pixel throughput versus 6.840 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and 30.53 GTexel/s of texture throughput versus 17.10 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the Quadro also leads with 732.7 GFLOPS against 547.2 GFLOPS. However, the benchmark results show the AMD chip converting its lower theoretical throughput into a higher actual OpenCL score.

Memory architecture is another major difference. The Radeon uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s, which is four times the bandwidth. The NVIDIA card's memory subsystem is clearly stronger from a spec standpoint, yet it did not translate into a benchmark win.

The interface and power profiles differ as well. The Radeon is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus, while the Quadro is a single-slot dedicated card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The Quadro has a 51 W TDP and recommends a 250 W power supply, while the Radeon's TDP is not recorded in the database. The Quadro's display outputs are fixed as 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the Radeon's outputs are dependent on the portable device it is integrated into.

Where Each One Wins

The data identifies a single benchmark, and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins that benchmark outright. The 28.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL suggests the Radeon architecture and driver stack are better suited to the compute-style workload that OpenCL represents. For tasks that rely on general-purpose GPU compute, such as basic rendering, physics simulation, or data processing in OpenCL-enabled applications, the R5 M320 is the faster part.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, despite losing the only measured benchmark, holds clear theoretical advantages. Its higher pixel rate (7.64 GPixel/s), texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (732.7 GFLOPS) point to strengths in traditional graphics rasterization. The 4x memory bandwidth advantage (64 GB/s vs. 16 GB/s) also makes it the better choice for texture-heavy scenes, large frame buffers, or any workload where memory bandwidth becomes the bottleneck. The Quadro's 128-bit bus and GDDR5 memory are substantially more capable than the Radeon's 64-bit DDR3 setup.

The Quadro also has a broader display output configuration with dedicated video outputs, making it more suitable for professional multi-monitor setups. The Radeon, as an IGP, is locked to the display outputs of the host device. For users who already own a system with the Radeon, it offers higher compute performance in OpenCL. For users who need a dedicated, single-slot workstation card with strong memory performance and conventional display outputs, the Quadro is the more versatile hardware. The database shows a clear compute win for AMD, but the NVIDIA card's strengths align with a different set of tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the only benchmark where both were tested?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5051 against 3919 for the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, a 28.9% difference.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D have a memory bandwidth advantage?

A: Yes. The Quadro has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, which is four times the 16.00 GB/s offered by the Radeon's 4 GB DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the key differences in pixel and texture throughput?

A: The Quadro K2000D has a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s, both higher than the Radeon R5 M320's corresponding 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher shading unit count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, with 384 shading units. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 320 shading units.

Q: How do they compare in terms of the PCIe interface?

A: The AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields in which the two GPUs differ according to the database.

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M320 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000D |

|:---|:---|:---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | Jet | GK107 |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 780 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 855 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory | 4 GB DDR3 | 2 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Effective Memory Clock | 2 Gbps | 4 Gbps |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.840 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.10 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 547.2 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 51 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 202 mm (8 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2013-02-28 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 5051 | 3919 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | 4262 | Not listed |

| Percentile (vs All GPUs) | 27 | 23 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 4657 | 3919 |

The data shows that the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is a smaller, more dense chip that excels in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is a larger, more resource-intensive chip with a stronger memory subsystem and higher raw throughput metrics.