AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes one direct head-to-head comparison between the AMD Radeon R5 M330 and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M. The test is Geekbench OpenCL, a compute-oriented workload that exercises the GPU's general-purpose processing capabilities. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434 points. This gives the AMD part a decisive 25.3% advantage in this specific test.

The margin is substantial. A 25.3% delta means the R5 M330 completes the same OpenCL workload with roughly a quarter more throughput. For a user running compute tasks that rely on OpenCL acceleration, this is a meaningful difference, not a marginal one. The NVIDIA part's score of 3434 places it in a region where the database's nearest rival comparisons show it trading blows with older integrated graphics and entry-level discrete parts. The Quadro 2000M sits 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (avg score 3431) and 1.3% above the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (avg score 3389), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX by 2.7% (avg score 3528) and the Intel HD Graphics 530 by 3.1% (avg score 3332). These are close contests, indicating that the Quadro 2000M's compute performance is clustered with low-end parts from an earlier era.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330, by contrast, sits in a higher performance bracket. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (avg score 4151, delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (avg score 4193, delta -0.5%), the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (avg score 4241, delta -1.7%), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (avg score 4093, delta 1.9%). The R5 M330's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4170, placing it within 1% of parts that are generally considered more capable in their respective product stacks. The data indicates that the R5 M330 outperforms the Quadro 2000M not just in the direct comparison, but also in overall standing: the R5 M330 sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 2000M sits at the 21st percentile.

It is importantly the head-to-head record is one win for the AMD part and zero for the NVIDIA part. The only recorded test with scores for both products, Geekbench OpenCL, goes to the AMD Radeon R5 M330 by a large margin. There is no Vulkan score recorded for the Quadro 2000M, and no other overlapping benchmark in the database. Therefore, the quantitative comparison rests entirely on this single OpenCL result. The data is clear but narrow: in the one measurable contest, the R5 M330 wins decisively.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and different process nodes. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, fabricated by TSMC. The chip, codenamed Exo, contains 690 million transistors on a die size of 56 mm². The resulting transistor density is 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process, also fabricated by TSMC. Its chip, GF106, contains 1,170 million transistors on a die size of 238 mm², giving a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The density gap is stark: the AMD chip packs more than twice the transistors per unit area, a direct consequence of the newer 28 nm node versus the older 40 nm node.

The AMD part belongs to the "Gem System (R5 M300)" generation, while the NVIDIA part belongs to the "Quadro Fermi-M (x000M)" generation. Their release dates differ by roughly four years: the Quadro 2000M was released in January 2011, and the R5 M330 in May 2015. The predecessor and successor entries in the database reflect this generational gap as well. The R5 M330 lists its predecessor as "Solar System" and its successor as "Polaris Mobile." The Quadro 2000M lists its predecessor as "Quadro FX Mobile" and its successor as "Quadro Kepler-M." Both products are marked end-of-life in the database.

Shader resources differ significantly. The R5 M330 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part has 66.7% more shading units, while the NVIDIA part has 60% more TMUs and double the ROPs. These resource allocations point to different design priorities: the R5 M330 leans toward compute throughput from a larger shader array, while the Quadro 2000M allocates more to texture and pixel processing. The recorded pixel rate for the R5 M330 is 8.240 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 20.60 GTexel/s. The Quadro 2000M's pixel rate is 4.400 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 17.60 GTexel/s. The R5 M330 leads in both pixel throughput and texture throughput, despite having fewer TMUs and ROPs, because its clock speeds are substantially higher.

Clock speeds are not directly comparable across all fields, as the Quadro 2000M has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. The R5 M330 runs at a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz. The memory clock for both parts is listed as 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. However, the memory subsystem differs elsewhere. Both GPUs have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the bus widths diverge: the R5 M330 uses a 64-bit bus, while the Quadro 2000M uses a 128-bit bus. This gives the Quadro 2000M double the memory bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s for the R5 M330. The NVIDIA part's wider memory bus is a notable advantage in bandwidth-bound scenarios, even though its raw compute throughput is lower.

Floating-point performance follows the shader and clock differences. The R5 M330 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro 2000M delivers 422.4 GFLOPS. The R5 M330 is 56% higher in FP32 throughput. Neither part has recorded FP16 performance. Both support DirectX 12, though with different feature levels: the R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), and the Quadro 2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R5 M330 also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 2000M has no recorded Vulkan support. This is a significant API difference, as Vulkan is a modern cross-platform graphics and compute API, and the NVIDIA part cannot run it per the database.

Power and form factor also differ. The R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors. The Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W and is listed as an MXM Module with no power connectors. The bus interface also differs: the R5 M330 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 2000M uses MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs for both are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the actual connectors depend on the host laptop. The R5 M330's much lower TDP reflects its newer process node and smaller die, while the Quadro 2000M's higher TDP and larger die reflect its older, less efficient Fermi architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins in compute performance. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 4302 versus 3434 is a 25.3% advantage, and the FP32 throughput of 659.2 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS reinforces this. Applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration, such as video encoding filters, image processing, or physics simulations, should favor the R5 M330 based on the recorded data. The R5 M330 also holds the advantage in pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s) and texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s), which are relevant to rasterization workloads. Its Vulkan support, recorded as 1.2.170, opens the door to modern Vulkan-based applications, which the Quadro 2000M cannot run at all, as no Vulkan API is recorded for it.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M wins in memory bandwidth. Its 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth double the R5 M330's 14.40 GB/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-limited rather than compute-limited, such as large texture streaming or certain data-moving operations, the Quadro 2000M's memory subsystem is the stronger asset. It also has double the ROPs (16 versus 8), which can help with fill-rate-bound tasks at certain resolutions, though the recorded pixel rate is lower due to clock differences. The Quadro 2000M's higher TDP of 55 W suggests it may be paired with more robust cooling in its host system, but the database does not record thermal performance, so this remains speculative.

In terms of benchmark standing, the R5 M330 is the better performer overall. Its average benchmark score of 4170 versus the Quadro 2000M's 3434 shows a 21.4% gap in aggregate. Its percentile rank of 25 versus 21 means it sits higher in the distribution of all GPUs in the database. The R5 M330's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, a well-known discrete desktop GPU, and the gap is only 0.5% in favor of the GTX 1050 Ti. This places the R5 M330 in a performance class that the Quadro 2000M, with rivals like the GeForce GT 740 and Intel HD Graphics 530, does not approach.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general compute and modern graphics workloads: the AMD Radeon R5 M330. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, delivers 56% higher FP32 throughput, has higher pixel and texture rates, and supports Vulkan, which the Quadro 2000M lacks. Its 25th percentile standing and average score of 4170 put it in the company of parts like the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, while the Quadro 2000M's 21st percentile and 3434 average score place it alongside integrated graphics like the Intel HD Graphics 530.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has one clear advantage: memory bandwidth. The 28.80 GB/s figure is double the R5 M330's 14.40 GB/s, and its 128-bit bus is a structural advantage that cannot be overcome by clock speeds. For a niche set of bandwidth-sensitive tasks, the Quadro 2000M could be the better choice. However, the recorded benchmark data shows no test where the Quadro 2000M wins. Its only recorded score, Geekbench OpenCL, is a loss by 25.3%. The verdict from the database is straightforward: the R5 M330 is the more capable GPU in compute and general performance, while the Quadro 2000M retains a memory bandwidth edge that does not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

Users who need OpenCL compute, Vulkan support, or higher pixel and texture throughput should choose the AMD Radeon R5 M330. Users who are constrained by memory bandwidth and work with workloads that are sensitive to bus width might consider the Quadro 2000M, but they should be aware that no recorded benchmark favors it. The R5 M330 is the recommended pick based on the available measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The R5 M330 leads by 25.3%.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M support Vulkan?

A: No. The database records Vulkan 1.2.170 for the AMD Radeon R5 M330, but no Vulkan version is listed for the Quadro 2000M.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth with a 128-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 14.40 GB/s with a 64-bit bus. The Quadro 2000M has double the bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS, and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M delivers 422.4 GFLOPS. The R5 M330 is 56% higher.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has 4.400 GPixel/s.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M sits at the 21st percentile.

Specification Differences

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

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

| 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 | Not recorded |

| Boost clock | 1030 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 4.400 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 17.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 422.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 18 W | 55 W |

| Slot width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | Not recorded |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M300) | Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) |

| Release date | May 2015 | January 2011 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 4302 | 3434 |

| Average benchmark score | 4170 | 3434 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 25 | 21 |

The two GPUs share some specifications: both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, a memory clock of 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, no power connectors, no recorded RT cores or tensor cores, no FP16 performance, no recorded dimensions, and no launch MSRP. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Both are marked end-of-life. Display outputs for both are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." These shared fields are excluded from the table above, which lists only the differences recorded in the database.