GPU Comparison

The benchmark data places the AMD Radeon R5 M330 ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 in the single available compute test, but the comparison is defined by generational and architectural extremes. The AMD part, built on a 28 nm process with GCN 1.0 architecture, posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4302, while the older NVIDIA Fermi-based Quadro 2000 manages 3898. That is a 10.4% delta in favor of the Radeon, a decisive margin in a synthetic compute workload. However, the Quadro 2000 counters with a vastly wider memory bus and higher memory bandwidth, traits that the OpenCL score alone does not fully capture. The data shows two very different designs: one optimized for low power integration, the other for professional workstation throughput in its era.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins it outright. The AMD GPU scores 4302, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898. This yields a delta of 10.4% in favor of the AMD part. In practical terms, this means the Radeon delivers roughly one-tenth more compute performance in this specific workload, which is a significant edge for a chip with a 28 nm process and GCN 1.0 architecture against a 40 nm Fermi design.

The margin becomes more telling when placed in context of each card’s nearest rivals. The Radeon R5 M330’s average benchmark score is 4170, which sits between the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151, +0.4% for AMD) and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093, +1.9% for AMD). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241) by 1.7% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) by 0.5%. Meanwhile, the Quadro 2000’s average score of 3898 places it just ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, +0.4%) but behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, -0.5%), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930, -0.8%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, -1.4%). The data indicates that the Radeon R5 M330 competes in a higher performance tier than the Quadro 2000, despite both being end-of-life products.

Looking at the absolute numbers, the Radeon’s FP32 throughput is 659.2 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro, a 37% advantage in raw floating-point capability. The pixel rate also favors AMD: 8.240 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, a 65% lead. Texture rate is nearly identical, with the Radeon at 20.60 GTexel/s and the Quadro at 20.00 GTexel/s, a mere 3% difference. The Radeon achieves this with fewer texture mapping units (20 vs. 32) but a higher clock speed (955 MHz base, 1030 MHz boost vs. no base/boost listed for the Quadro). The Quadro’s only clear spec-sheet win is memory bandwidth: 41.60 GB/s from a 128-bit GDDR5 interface versus 14.40 GB/s from a 64-bit DDR3 interface on the Radeon.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins in compute-heavy tasks. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 4302 versus 3898 demonstrates superior general-purpose GPU compute performance. This is reinforced by the FP32 output of 659.2 GFLOPS, which is 37% higher than the Quadro’s 480.0 GFLOPS. The Radeon also leads in pixel fill rate, at 8.240 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, making it the better choice for pixel-bound rendering workloads. Its higher shading unit count (320 vs. 192) and faster clocks (955 MHz base, 1030 MHz boost) contribute to these wins.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins in memory-intensive scenarios. Its 128-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory type provide 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly three times the Radeon’s 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro also has double the ROPs (16 vs. 8) and 60% more TMUs (32 vs. 20), which helps in texture-heavy scenes despite the lower overall clock. For applications that saturate memory bandwidth—such as large texture streaming or high-resolution framebuffer operations—the Quadro’s architecture has a structural advantage. Additionally, the Quadro supports 2x DisplayPort and 1x DVI outputs, while the Radeon’s display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning the Quadro is more suitable for fixed workstation setups with multiple monitors.

In terms of efficiency, the Radeon wins decisively. Its TDP is 18 W versus 62 W for the Quadro, a 71% reduction in power draw. The Radeon is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors, while the Quadro is a single-slot card that also requires no power connectors but suggests a 250 W PSU. The Radeon’s 28 nm process node and 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die (12.3M transistors per mm²) contrast sharply with the Quadro’s 40 nm process, 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die (4.9M per mm²). This makes the Radeon far more suitable for low-power, portable devices.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with the chip codename “Exo,” part of the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. It uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 uses Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, part of the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation. It employs a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: 12.3M per mm² for AMD versus 4.9M per mm² for NVIDIA, reflecting the newer manufacturing node.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Radeon uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth with memory clocked at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Quadro uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s bandwidth with memory at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). The Quadro’s bus is twice as wide and its memory type is faster, but the Radeon has twice the capacity.

Compute resources also differ. The Radeon has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon’s higher shader count and clock speed (955 MHz base, 1030 MHz boost) drive its FP32 lead, while the Quadro’s higher TMU and ROP counts support its texture and pixel throughput. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The Radeon uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302, which is 10.4% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000’s 3898.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 41.60 GB/s bandwidth from a 128-bit GDDR5 interface, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 14.40 GB/s from a 64-bit DDR3 interface.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W. The Quadro also suggests a 250 W PSU.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 support Vulkan?

A: No. The Quadro 2000 lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan version. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 320 shading units, compared to 192 on the NVIDIA Quadro 2000.

Q: What are the release dates for these GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 was released on May 4, 2015. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 was released on December 23, 2010.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon R5 M330 as the stronger compute performer. Its 10.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with a 37% advantage in FP32 throughput and a 65% advantage in pixel rate, makes it the clear winner for general-purpose and shader-heavy workloads. Its 18 W TDP and integrated form factor also make it the logical choice for mobile or low-power systems. The only benchmark that pits them directly ends in AMD’s favor, and the Radeon’s average benchmark score of 4170 is 7% above the Quadro’s 3898.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000, however, is not without merit. Its 41.60 GB/s memory bandwidth is nearly triple the Radeon’s, and its 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory is better suited for bandwidth-bound tasks. The Quadro’s 16 ROPs and 32 TMUs give it an edge in raw texture and pixel processing, despite the lower clock speeds. For legacy workstation applications that rely on memory throughput rather than raw shader count, the Quadro remains a viable option. Its launch MSRP was 599 USD.

The verdict is straightforward: the AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins on compute performance, efficiency, and modern API support. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins on memory bandwidth and dedicated display outputs. Users prioritizing OpenCL compute, low power draw, or Vulkan support should choose the Radeon. Users requiring high memory bandwidth for specific professional workloads or needing fixed DVI/DisplayPort outputs should consider the Quadro. The Radeon’s 25th percentile versus the Quadro’s 23rd percentile confirms the AMD part sits slightly higher in the overall GPU performance distribution.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M330 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 |

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

| 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 |

| Base Clock | 955 MHz | N/A |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | N/A |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 18 W | 62 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2010-12-23 |