AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but narrow victory for the AMD Radeon R5 M330. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the AMD part scores 4302 on Geekbench OpenCL, which is 9.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D’s 3919. The AMD card also holds a higher average benchmark score of 4170 versus 3919 for NVIDIA. However, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 only wins 1 benchmark out of 1, meaning the Quadro K2000D has zero wins in the direct comparison.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is the better choice for compute workloads that rely on OpenCL performance, given its decisive lead in the only available test. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, while behind in raw compute, does offer a different feature set that may matter for specific professional use cases. The AMD card is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), whereas the NVIDIA is a single-slot discrete card with a 250 W suggested PSU. The Quadro K2000D also carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the AMD has no listed launch MSRP. For users who prioritize the measured compute score, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 is the data-backed winner. For those who need a low-profile, single-slot expansion card with display outputs like 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, the Quadro K2000D is the only option that provides those physical features.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is built on the Graphics Core Next 1.0 architecture, using a chip codenamed "Exo." It belongs to the "Gem System (R5 M300)" generation. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D uses the Kepler architecture with a GK107 chip, from the "Quadro Kepler (Kx000)" generation.

Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but their transistor budgets diverge significantly. The AMD chip packs 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA chip has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, yielding a density of 10.8M per mm². This means the NVIDIA chip is physically larger and has nearly double the transistor count, though its density is lower due to the larger die area.

The memory subsystems differ in type and bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D also has 2 GB of memory, but it is GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s — a 4.4x advantage in raw memory bandwidth. The memory clock is also different: AMD runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while NVIDIA runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA card has a higher memory bus width and faster memory type, which contributes to its substantially higher bandwidth figure.

Compute resource counts are in NVIDIA’s favor. The Quadro K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the AMD card achieves a higher pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA’s 7.632 GPixel/s. However, the AMD part’s texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s falls behind NVIDIA’s 30.53 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is also higher on NVIDIA: 732.7 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS.

Power and interface characteristics set them apart. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable device dependent display outputs. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W, is a single-slot card with no power connectors, and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The bus interfaces differ too: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The NVIDIA card has physical dimensions of 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The AMD card has no listed dimensions, consistent with its integrated nature. API support shows a split: AMD supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan versions differ slightly (AMD 1.2.170, NVIDIA 1.2.175).

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the data, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available — Geekbench OpenCL — with a score of 4302 versus 3919 for the Quadro K2000D. This represents a 9.8% advantage. The AMD card also has a higher average benchmark score of 4170, which places it at the 25th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has an average score of 3919, putting it at the 23rd percentile.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins in pixel rate, achieving 8.240 GPixel/s against NVIDIA’s 7.632 GPixel/s. This is a 7.9% advantage in pixel fill rate despite having half the ROP count. The AMD part also has a lower TDP of 18 W versus 51 W, making it more power-efficient in terms of raw wattage.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins in several specification categories that do not translate to benchmark wins. It has a 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth versus AMD’s 14.40 GB/s, a 344% advantage. It has more shading units (384 vs 320), more TMUs (32 vs 20), and more ROPs (16 vs 8). Its FP32 compute of 732.7 GFLOPS is 11.1% higher than AMD’s 659.2 GFLOPS. The texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s is 48.2% higher than AMD’s 20.60 GTexel/s.

The NVIDIA card also wins on connectivity. It offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the AMD card’s display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are not standardized. The NVIDIA card is a physical single-slot unit with a 202 mm length and 111 mm height, suitable for desktop installation. The AMD card is an IGP with no physical dimensions listed. The NVIDIA card also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins the only head-to-head benchmark test (Geekbench OpenCL) with a score of 4302, which is 9.8% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D’s 3919.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is significantly higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M330’s 14.40 GB/s. This is due to the NVIDIA card’s 128-bit GDDR5 memory versus AMD’s 64-bit DDR3.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W. The NVIDIA card also has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the AMD card has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU supports more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has 384 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 320 shading units. The NVIDIA card also has more TMUs (32 vs 20) and more ROPs (16 vs 8).

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API versions?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark result is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919. The AMD card wins by a delta of 9.8%. This is a substantial margin in a compute-oriented test. The AMD card’s average benchmark score of 4170 is also higher than NVIDIA’s 3919, reinforcing the AMD advantage in overall measured performance.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The AMD Radeon R5 M330’s nearest rival by average score is the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4151, which is 0.4% behind the AMD card. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 4193, which is 0.5% ahead of the AMD. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, 1.7% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB scores 4093, which is 1.9% behind. This shows that the AMD Radeon R5 M330 sits in a competitive cluster, trading places with several other GPUs within a 2% band.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D’s nearest rivals are similarly close. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930, which is 0.3% ahead of the K2000D. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898, 0.5% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953, 0.9% ahead. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 3883, 0.9% behind. The K2000D’s average score of 3919 places it just below the midpoint of its immediate rival cluster.

The 9.8% delta between the two cards in question is larger than the deltas between each card and its own nearest rivals. This suggests that the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a meaningful performance edge over the Quadro K2000D in OpenCL compute workloads, even though both cards are in the same general performance tier (25th vs 23rd percentile).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category that defines their physical and compute characteristics.

• Chip and architecture: AMD uses the Exo chip with GCN 1.0 architecture. NVIDIA uses the GK107 chip with Kepler architecture.
• Transistors: AMD has 690 million; NVIDIA has 1,270 million.
• Die size: AMD is 56 mm²; NVIDIA is 118 mm².
• Transistor density: AMD is 12.3M per mm²; NVIDIA is 10.8M per mm².
• Base and boost clocks: AMD has a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost of 1030 MHz; NVIDIA has no listed base or boost clocks.
• Memory clock: AMD runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective); NVIDIA runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).
• Memory type: AMD uses DDR3; NVIDIA uses GDDR5.
• Memory bus width: AMD is 64 bit; NVIDIA is 128 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: AMD is 14.40 GB/s; NVIDIA is 64.00 GB/s.
• Shading units: AMD has 320; NVIDIA has 384.
• Texture mapping units: AMD has 20; NVIDIA has 32.
• Render output units: AMD has 8; NVIDIA has 16.
• Pixel rate: AMD is 8.240 GPixel/s; NVIDIA is 7.632 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: AMD is 20.60 GTexel/s; NVIDIA is 30.53 GTexel/s.
• FP32 compute: AMD is 659.2 GFLOPS; NVIDIA is 732.7 GFLOPS.
• TDP: AMD is 18 W; NVIDIA is 51 W.
• Slot width: AMD is IGP; NVIDIA is single-slot.
• Power connectors: Both have none, but NVIDIA has a suggested PSU of 250 W while AMD has no suggested PSU.
• Bus interface: AMD is PCIe 3.0 x8; NVIDIA is PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display outputs: AMD is portable device dependent; NVIDIA is 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.
• DirectX support: AMD is 12 (11_1); NVIDIA is 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan support: AMD is 1.2.170; NVIDIA is 1.2.175.
• Dimensions: AMD has none listed; NVIDIA is 202 mm long and 111 mm high.
• Release date: AMD released 2015-05-04; NVIDIA released 2013-02-28.
• Predecessor: AMD’s is Solar System; NVIDIA’s is Quadro Fermi.
• Successor: AMD’s is Polaris Mobile; NVIDIA’s is Quadro Maxwell.
• Launch MSRP: AMD has none; NVIDIA is 599 USD.