AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 and NVIDIA Quadro K2100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 28 nm era, yet benchmark results show they are far from identical in execution. The data places the AMD part at an average benchmark score of 4170, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M sits marginally behind at 4151, a difference of only 0.4%. However, this near-parity in aggregate scoring masks a consistent performance gap in individual tests, where the NVIDIA part wins both head-to-head comparisons. The following analysis breaks down where each GPU demonstrates its strengths, the architectural choices that define them, and what the benchmark numbers actually mean for a potential user.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provides a clear, if narrow, split in capabilities. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 claims the higher average benchmark score of 4170, edging out the Quadro K2100M's 4151 by a 0.4% margin. This gives the AMD part a slight statistical advantage in the aggregated scoring metric, which factors in its OpenCL and Vulkan results. In the specific tests, however, the AMD GPU does not secure a single win; the head-to-head results show the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M taking both available benchmarks. This suggests the AMD card's higher average is a product of its specific score distribution rather than outright superiority in any tested workload.

For the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, the wins are concrete and measurable. It outperforms the AMD Radeon R5 M330 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 4587 against 4302, a 6.2% advantage. It also wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 4343 versus 4037, a 7% lead. These are the only two head-to-head benchmarks available, and the NVIDIA part wins both. The winsB count of 2 versus winsA of 0 for the AMD part confirms this pattern. Therefore, the Quadro K2100M is the choice for workloads that leverage OpenCL compute or Vulkan graphics APIs, based strictly on the performance data.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330's "win" is purely in the aggregate average, which is a useful but less specific metric. Its 4170 average score places it 0.4% ahead of the Quadro K2100M, but this lead is smaller than the individual test deltas. This implies that the AMD part's scores are tightly clustered, while the NVIDIA part's higher OpenCL and Vulkan numbers are pulled down by other factors not shown in the head-to-head table. For a user relying on the overall average as a proxy for general capability, the AMD card appears slightly better, but the direct comparison of specific tests tells a different story.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but their internal designs diverge sharply. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses the Exo chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S chip based on the Kepler architecture. This fundamental difference in design philosophy is evident in the transistor counts: the AMD chip packs 690 million transistors onto a 56 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is substantially larger, with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, yielding a slightly lower density of 11.5M per mm². The larger die and higher transistor count give NVIDIA more room for execution resources.

The compute resource allocation reflects these architectural choices. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operations pipelines. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M counters with 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This is a significant difference in raw hardware, with NVIDIA fielding 80% more shading units and 140% more TMUs and ROPs. However, the AMD part compensates with higher clock speeds: its base clock is 955 MHz with a boost of 1030 MHz, while the NVIDIA part runs at a static 667 MHz with no boost. This clock advantage helps the AMD part close the gap in certain metrics, though not in the head-to-head tests.

Memory subsystems also differ considerably. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, quadrupling the bus width and delivering 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. This 3.3x bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA is critical for memory-intensive tasks. The memory clocks reflect this too: AMD runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while NVIDIA runs at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The GDDR5 type and wider bus give NVIDIA a decisive bandwidth lead despite lower memory clock speeds.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two direct comparisons in the data are both Geekbench tests, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins both decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2100M scores 4587 against the AMD Radeon R5 M330's 4302, a 6.2% margin. This is a substantial lead, likely driven by the NVIDIA part's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth. The OpenCL workload benefits from parallel computation, and NVIDIA's 576 shading units versus AMD's 320 provide a clear hardware advantage that the AMD clock speed cannot fully offset.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The Quadro K2100M scores 4343, while the Radeon R5 M330 scores 4037, a 7% difference. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API, and the NVIDIA part's superior texture rate of 32.02 GTexel/s versus AMD's 20.60 GTexel/s likely contributes to this win. The pixel rates are closer — 8.004 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 8.240 GPixel/s for AMD — but the texture and memory bandwidth advantages for NVIDIA appear to be the deciding factors. The deltaPct values of -6.2% and -7% (from AMD's perspective) confirm that the NVIDIA part is consistently faster in both tests.

These results are particularly noteworthy given the aggregate scores. The AMD Radeon R5 M330's average of 4170 is 0.4% higher than the Quadro K2100M's 4151, yet the NVIDIA part wins both head-to-head tests by 6-7%. This discrepancy suggests that the AMD part may perform better in other unlisted benchmarks, or that the average score calculation weights the tests differently. From the available data, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the clear winner in every direct comparison, with the AMD part only ahead in the overall average by a margin smaller than the individual test deltas.

Specification Differences

Several key specifications differ between the two GPUs, and these differences explain the benchmark results. The process node is identical at 28 nm, and both are fabricated by TSMC, but the chip sizes and transistor counts are vastly different. The AMD Radeon R5 M330's chip is 56 mm² with 690 million transistors, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M's chip is 221 mm² with 2,540 million transistors. The NVIDIA part also has a higher transistor density of 11.5M per mm² versus AMD's 12.3M per mm², though this is a minor difference.

The shading unit count is a major differentiator, with the NVIDIA part featuring 576 units versus AMD's 320. The TMU count is 48 versus 20, and the ROP count is 16 versus 8. Clock speeds favor the AMD part, which runs at 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA part is locked at 667 MHz. The AMD part also has a higher pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA's 8.004 GPixel/s, but the NVIDIA part has a significantly higher texture rate of 32.02 GTexel/s versus AMD's 20.60 GTexel/s.

Memory configuration is another major split. Both have 2 GB of memory, but the AMD part uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the NVIDIA part uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. This gives the NVIDIA part a bandwidth of 48.13 GB/s versus AMD's 14.40 GB/s. The power profiles also differ, with the AMD part rated at 18 W TDP versus NVIDIA's 55 W TDP, and the slot widths differ (IGP versus MXM Module). The bus interfaces are different as well: PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD versus MXM-A (3.0) for NVIDIA. API support is similar, with both offering DirectX 12 (11_1 for AMD, 11_0 for NVIDIA), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (1.2.170 for AMD, 1.2.175 for NVIDIA). The floating-point performance favors NVIDIA at 768.4 GFLOPS versus AMD's 659.2 GFLOPS.

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 0.4% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M's average score of 4151.

Q: What are the results of the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4587, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302. This gives NVIDIA a 6.2% advantage.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has a memory bandwidth of 48.13 GB/s using GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s using DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 320 shading units. The NVIDIA part also has 48 TMUs and 16 ROPs versus AMD's 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a boost clock of 1030 MHz, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has a static clock of 667 MHz with no boost. The AMD part also has a higher base clock of 955 MHz.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is rated at 18 W TDP, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is rated at 55 W TDP. The AMD part is an IGP slot width, while the NVIDIA part is an MXM Module.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy in the two benchmarks tested. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 6.2% and the Vulkan test by 7%. These are consistent, non-trivial margins that indicate a real performance advantage in these specific workloads. The NVIDIA part's higher shading unit count (576 versus 320), texture rate (32.02 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s), and memory bandwidth (48.13 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) are the likely drivers of this success. The AMD Radeon R5 M330's higher clocks and pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s versus 8.004 GPixel/s) are not enough to overcome these deficits.

The aggregate average score slightly favors the AMD part, but this is a weaker signal than the direct head-to-head results. A 0.4% average lead is within the margin of statistical noise, especially when the individual tests show a 6-7% gap in the opposite direction. Users should trust the specific benchmark results over the aggregate when choosing between these two for OpenCL or Vulkan workloads. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the better performer in the tests that matter, based on the available data.

For users prioritizing compute or graphics performance in these APIs, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the clear pick. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 offers a lower TDP of 18 W versus 55 W and a smaller die size, which may be relevant for thermal or space-constrained systems, but the benchmark data shows no performance win to justify that trade-off. The NVIDIA part also has a higher FP32 throughput of 768.4 GFLOPS versus AMD's 659.2 GFLOPS. The verdict is straightforward: the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins on performance in every head-to-head test, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330's only advantage is a marginal lead in the average score and lower power consumption.