AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 split their two head-to-head benchmark encounters exactly evenly, with each securing one victory. The data indicates a clear specialization: the AMD part takes the OpenCL compute workload, while the NVIDIA part takes the Vulkan graphics workload. The R5 M330 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4302 against the Quadro K2000’s 4071, a delta of 5.7% in AMD’s favor. Conversely, the Quadro K2000 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 4191 against 4037, a 3.7% margin for NVIDIA.

This split suggests that the AMD Radeon R5 M330 is better suited for general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is better positioned for Vulkan-based rendering workloads. The R5 M330’s overall average benchmark score of 4170 places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2000’s average of 3964 places it in the 24th percentile — a negligible difference in overall standing. The R5 M330 also has a higher individual OpenCL score than its own average, indicating that this test represents its strongest workload. The Quadro K2000, by contrast, shows a Vulkan score of 4191 that exceeds its average, pointing to Vulkan as its preferred API environment.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on the "Exo" chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses the Kepler architecture on the GK107 chip, also fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both use the same process node and foundry, but the transistor counts diverge significantly: the R5 M330 packs 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.3 million transistors per mm². The Quadro K2000 packs 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, yielding a density of 10.8 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA chip is larger in both absolute die size and transistor count, but the AMD chip achieves higher transistor density.

Memory subsystems differ markedly. The R5 M330 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with memory clocks at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocks at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA part has double the bus width and more than four times the memory bandwidth, a decisive advantage for bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The R5 M330’s compute configuration includes 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The Quadro K2000 counters with 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — higher counts across every category.

Clock behavior differs as well. The R5 M330 runs at a base clock of 955 MHz with a boost of 1030 MHz, while the Quadro K2000’s base and boost clocks are not specified in the data. The R5 M330 achieves a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 659.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro K2000 achieves a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 732.7 GFLOPS. Despite having more shading units and higher FP32 throughput, the Quadro K2000 has a lower pixel rate, a consequence of its lower unspecified clock speeds. Power characteristics differ substantially: the R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W and an IGP slot width, while the Quadro K2000 has a TDP of 51 W, a single-slot design, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R5 M330 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. API support shows parity in OpenGL (both 4.6) and near-parity in Vulkan (1.2.170 for AMD, 1.2.175 for NVIDIA), while DirectX support differs: the R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), and the Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the AMD Radeon R5 M330’s most significant victory. The R5 M330 scores 4302 against the Quadro K2000’s 4071, a 5.7% advantage. This result is notable because the Quadro K2000 has more shading units (384 vs. 320), higher FP32 throughput (732.7 GFLOPS vs. 659.2 GFLOPS), and vastly superior memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s). Yet the R5 M330 still outperforms it in OpenCL, suggesting that the GCN 1.0 architecture’s compute efficiency or the higher boost clock of 1030 MHz compensates for the hardware deficit. The R5 M330’s OpenCL score also exceeds its overall average of 4170, confirming that OpenCL is a strength area for this part.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result. The Quadro K2000 scores 4191 against the R5 M330’s 4037, a 3.7% margin. This Vulkan victory aligns with the Quadro K2000’s architectural advantages in texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s vs. 20.60 GTexel/s) and memory bandwidth. The Vulkan score of 4191 is notably higher than the Quadro K2000’s average of 3964, indicating that Vulkan workloads extract more performance from this GPU than typical tasks. The R5 M330’s Vulkan score of 4037 is lower than its OpenCL score of 4302, showing a 6.2% drop when switching APIs. The Quadro K2000’s Vulkan score of 4191 is higher than its OpenCL score of 4071, a 2.9% improvement.

The overall averages tell a consistent story. The R5 M330’s average of 4170 puts it 5.2% ahead of the Quadro K2000’s average of 3964. In the nearest rival context, the R5 M330 sits within 1.9% of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (average 4093) and 0.5% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (average 4193). The Quadro K2000 sits within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (average 3953) and 0.2% of the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (average 3956). The Quadro K2000’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at a 0.2% delta, while the R5 M330’s closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at a 0.4% delta. The data shows both GPUs clustered tightly with their immediate competitors, indicating that neither has a decisive edge over its direct peers.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a clear but narrow conclusion: the AMD Radeon R5 M330 is the stronger overall part, with a higher average benchmark score (4170 vs. 3964) and a 5.7% victory in the OpenCL head-to-head. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000, however, holds a 3.7% advantage in Vulkan, making it the better choice for workloads that rely on that API. The R5 M330 achieves its OpenCL win despite having fewer shading units, lower FP32 throughput, and dramatically lower memory bandwidth — a signal of the efficiency of the GCN 1.0 architecture in compute tasks. The Quadro K2000’s Vulkan win is more conventional, leveraging its superior texture rate and bandwidth.

For users prioritizing general compute performance across a broad range of tasks, the R5 M330’s higher average score and OpenCL dominance make it the data-supported pick. For users specifically targeting Vulkan-based rendering or applications that favor NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, the Quadro K2000 offers a measurable advantage. The Quadro K2000 also has the practical benefit of a single-slot form factor with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the R5 M330’s display outputs are portable device dependent. The R5 M330’s 18 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient than the Quadro K2000’s 51 W TDP, and its IGP slot width means it is designed for integration rather than discrete installation. The Quadro K2000’s 202 mm length and 111 mm height (8 inches and 4.4 inches) confirm its discrete card form factor, with a launch MSRP of 599 USD. In the final analysis, the R5 M330 wins on raw average performance and compute efficiency, while the Quadro K2000 wins on Vulkan-specific performance and memory bandwidth. Neither part achieves a dominant position, and the 25th and 24th percentiles respectively reflect two GPUs that are both firmly in the lower half of the performance distribution.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has an average benchmark score of 4170, which is 5.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000’s average of 3964.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302 in Geekbench OpenCL, defeating the NVIDIA Quadro K2000’s 4071 by a 5.7% margin.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4191 in Geekbench Vulkan, defeating the AMD Radeon R5 M330’s 4037 by a 3.7% margin.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 320 shading units, a difference of 64 units in NVIDIA’s favor.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has a TDP of 51 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.