AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are both end-of-life products, but they represent very different design philosophies. The R5 M330 is a low-power mobile chip from 2015, while the Quadro 2000D is a professional desktop card from 2011. Benchmark data shows the R5 M330 holds a lead in the only shared test, but the Quadro 2000D brings a wider memory bus and higher bandwidth to the table. This comparison is about trading raw compute throughput against memory subsystem advantages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930 points. This gives AMD a 9.5% advantage in this specific workload. The margin is meaningful but not overwhelming; it suggests the R5 M330 has a genuine compute advantage in OpenCL tasks.

Looking at the broader context, the R5 M330’s average benchmark score across all tests is 4170, which places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro 2000D’s average is 3930, placing it in the 23rd percentile. These percentile rankings show both cards are near the bottom of the performance spectrum, but the AMD part sits slightly higher.

The R5 M330’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (avg score 4151, delta 0.4%), the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (avg score 4193, delta -0.5%), and the Quadro K3000M (avg score 4241, delta -1.7%). This tells us the R5 M330 is bracketed by a range of mid-to-low-end cards from both vendors, with the GTX 1050 Ti being just 0.5% faster on average.

The Quadro 2000D’s nearest rivals are clustered even tighter. The Quadro K2000D averages 3919 (delta 0.3%), the GeForce GT 745M averages 3953 (delta -0.6%), the Radeon R5 M420 averages 3956 (delta -0.7%), and the GeForce 830M averages 3957 (delta -0.7%). This shows the Quadro 2000D is essentially neck-and-neck with several other low-end parts, with all deltas under 1%.

In the single head-to-head test, the R5 M330 wins outright. This is a clean victory for AMD on the compute side. However, it is notably the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan benchmark score in the data, while the R5 M330 scores 4037 in Geekbench Vulkan. This suggests the AMD card has broader API support that could matter in specific applications.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins in raw compute performance. Its FP32 throughput is 659.2 GFLOPS, compared to 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000D. That is a 37% advantage in theoretical floating-point performance. The R5 M330 also has more shading units (320 vs 192), which contributes to its compute lead. Its pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s is also higher than the Quadro’s 5.000 GPixel/s.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D wins in memory bandwidth and memory bus width. It has a 128-bit bus and 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R5 M330 has only a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s. This is a 2.9x advantage in bandwidth for NVIDIA. The Quadro also uses GDDR5 memory, while the AMD card uses DDR3. For memory-bound workloads, the Quadro 2000D’s superior bandwidth could offset its lower compute throughput.

The Quadro 2000D also wins on texture rate, with 20.00 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s for the R5 M330 — actually, the AMD card is slightly ahead here, but the margin is negligible. The Quadro has more TMUs (32 vs 20) and more ROPs (16 vs 8), which could help in certain rasterization tasks despite the lower clock speeds.

The R5 M330’s architecture is more modern in terms of process node (28 nm vs 40 nm), which explains its higher transistor density (12.3M per mm² vs 4.9M per mm²). This allows AMD to pack 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, while NVIDIA uses 1,170 million transistors across a much larger 238 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Exo chip. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GPU has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. Its base clock is 955 MHz with a boost clock of 1030 MHz. The memory runs at 900 MHz, delivering 1800 Mbps effective through a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip. It is manufactured on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This older process node means larger transistors and lower density. The GPU has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. There are no listed base or boost clocks, but the memory runs at 650 MHz, delivering 2.6 Gbps effective through a 128-bit bus, yielding 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth.

The R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. This is a significant feature difference for modern applications that rely on Vulkan. The R5 M330 also has a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro 2000D uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16.

Power consumption differs substantially. The R5 M330 is rated at 18 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors. The Quadro 2000D is a single-slot card with a 62 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro is physically larger, measuring 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The R5 M330’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the Quadro has 2x DVI outputs.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 is the better choice for compute-heavy workloads. Its 9.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with higher FP32 throughput and more shading units, gives it a clear edge in general-purpose GPU compute. Its support for Vulkan 1.2.170 is another point in its favor, as this API is increasingly common in modern applications.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is the better choice for memory-bound tasks. Its 128-bit bus and 41.60 GB/s bandwidth are dramatically higher than the R5 M330’s 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s. If a workload is bottlenecked by memory throughput rather than compute, the Quadro could actually outperform the AMD part despite its lower raw scores. Its 2x DVI outputs also make it more practical for multi-monitor professional setups.

For new builds, neither card is recommended — both are end-of-life and sit near the bottom of the performance percentile rankings. However, if forced to choose, the R5 M330 offers better compute performance, lower power draw (18 W vs 62 W), and more modern API support. The Quadro 2000D offers better memory bandwidth and a professional form factor, but its older Fermi architecture and lack of Vulkan support limit its long-term viability.

The R5 M330’s nearest rivals bracket its performance closely, with the GTX 1050 Ti being nearly identical (delta -0.5%). The Quadro 2000D sits in an even tighter cluster of low-end parts. This suggests that the performance delta between these two cards is real but modest, and architectural differences may matter more than raw scores in specific use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has higher FP32 performance at 659.2 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D. It also has more shading units (320 vs 192).

Q: Does the Quadro 2000D have any advantage over the R5 M330?

A: Yes, the Quadro 2000D has a 128-bit memory bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the R5 M330’s 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s. It also has more ROPs (16 vs 8) and more TMUs (32 vs 20).

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The R5 M330 scores 4302 while the Quadro 2000D scores 3930, giving the AMD card a 9.5% advantage in this test.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W. The R5 M330 is also an IGP with no power connectors.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two GPUs?

A: The R5 M330 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Base Clock | 955 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | Not listed |

| 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 | 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 | Not listed | 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) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | Not listed |

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

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |