AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data pits the AMD Radeon R5 M320 against the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M in two cross-platform compute tests, and the results split almost perfectly down the middle. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 posts a score of 5051 against the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M's 4587, giving AMD a 10.1% lead. That is a meaningful margin for a mobile IGP-class part, and it places the R5 M320 ahead of its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro P400, which scores 4684, a 0.6% deficit. The OpenCL result also outpaces the GeForce GTX 970M (4628) and the Quadro M3000M (4621), both of which trail by 0.6% and 0.8% respectively.

The Vulkan test flips the script. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4343, edging out the AMD Radeon R5 M320's 4262 by 1.9%. That is a narrow victory, but it shows the Kepler-based Quadro holding its own in a modern low-level API. The K2100M's Vulkan score also sits above its nearest rival list: the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170) trails by 0.4%, the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) trails by 1%, the Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093) trails by 1.4%, and Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075) trails by 1.9%. So the K2100M, despite being the older part in this comparison, manages to win one of the two head-to-head tests.

The aggregate picture favors AMD. The R5 M320 carries an average benchmark score of 4657, which puts it at the 27th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The K2100M's average is 4151, sitting at the 25th percentile. That 506-point gap in averages is driven almost entirely by the OpenCL result, where AMD's 10.1% advantage outweighs NVIDIA's 1.9% Vulkan win. Interestingly, the R5 M320's average score exactly matches its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, both at 4657 with a 0% delta. The K2100M, by contrast, is 1.9% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630, its closest listed rival on the low end.

What the numbers do not show is a consistent winner across both APIs. The OpenCL test favors the R5 M320's GCN architecture and its higher clock speeds, while the Vulkan test favors the K2100M's larger shading unit count and memory bandwidth. Neither part dominates the other in a way that would settle the argument outright, so the choice between them depends heavily on the workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins with a score of 5051, which is 10.1% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M's 4587.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins with a score of 4343, beating the AMD Radeon R5 M320's 4262 by 1.9%.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has an average benchmark score of 4657, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M averages 4151. That puts the R5 M320 at the 27th percentile of all GPUs and the K2100M at the 25th percentile.

Q: What is the closest rival to the AMD Radeon R5 M320?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB has the same average score of 4657, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 is close behind at 4684, only 0.6% higher.

Q: What is the closest rival to the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4170, which is 0.4% below the K2100M. The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is 1% lower at 4193.

Q: Does either GPU have a clear overall winner?

A: No. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins one test (OpenCL) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins the other (Vulkan), so the head-to-head record is 1 win each.

The Verdict

The data supports a split decision. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the stronger pick. Its 5051 OpenCL score is 10.1% ahead of the K2100M, and its average benchmark score of 4657 exceeds the K2100M's 4151 by a healthy margin. The R5 M320 also lands at a higher percentile (27th) compared to the K2100M (25th), meaning it ranks above a larger share of the GPU population in the database.

For users who rely on Vulkan workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M takes the edge. Its 4343 Vulkan score is 1.9% above the R5 M320's 4262, and it also carries a wider memory bus and more shading units. The K2100M's 48.13 GB/s of memory bandwidth is roughly three times the R5 M320's 16.00 GB/s, which could matter in memory-heavy scenarios even if the aggregate compute numbers do not show it.

Neither part is a clear winner in every category, but the AMD Radeon R5 M320 has the better overall average score and the more decisive single-test victory. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, meanwhile, offers a more balanced feature set with higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput, though its raw benchmark average lags. The choice comes down to which API and workload matters more.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply on memory. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 ships with 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 48.13 GB/s. That is a threefold advantage in bandwidth for NVIDIA, despite half the capacity.

Clock speeds also differ. The R5 M320 runs at a base clock of 780 MHz with a boost of 855 MHz, while the K2100M runs at a flat 667 MHz with no boost. The R5 M320's memory operates at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), whereas the K2100M's memory runs at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The effective data rate is higher on the K2100M, but the raw memory clock is higher on the R5 M320.

The compute units tell a different story. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 8.004 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 32.02 GTexel/s, and 768.4 GFLOPS of FP32. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, yielding 6.840 GPixel/s, 17.10 GTexel/s, and 547.2 GFLOPS. The K2100M leads in every throughput metric.

Form factor and power also separate the two. The R5 M320 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dedicated power connectors and no TDP listed in the database. The K2100M is an MXM module rated at 55 W, also with no power connectors. The bus interface differs as well: the R5 M320 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the K2100M uses MXM-A (3.0).

DirectX support favors AMD. The R5 M320 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the K2100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, and both support Vulkan, with the R5 M320 at version 1.2.170 and the K2100M at 1.2.175.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The K2100M uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, for a density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The K2100M's die is nearly four times larger and holds nearly four times as many transistors.

The R5 M320 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation and was released on 2015-05-04. Its predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile. The K2100M is part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, released on 2013-07-22, with Quadro Fermi-M as its predecessor and Quadro Maxwell-M as its successor. The K2100M is the older part by nearly two years.

The architectural split shows up in the feature set. GCN 1.0 on the R5 M320 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while Kepler on the K2100M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Vulkan support is slightly newer on the K2100M (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170), but both are current. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those features. The R5 M320's larger memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB) is a direct consequence of its IGP design, while the K2100M's higher bandwidth comes from its GDDR5 memory and wider bus.

The transistor density numbers are close, 12.3M per mm² for AMD versus 11.5M for NVIDIA, which reflects the shared 28 nm process. But the K2100M's larger die allows for more shading units (576 vs 320), more TMUs (48 vs 20), and more ROPs (16 vs 8), which explains its higher throughput in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32. The R5 M320 compensates with higher clock speeds (855 MHz boost vs 667 MHz) and a slightly newer architecture generation, which helps explain its OpenCL win despite lower raw specs.