AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has a higher average benchmark score of 4752, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898. The Radeon also sits at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the Quadro's 23rd percentile.

Q: What is the performance gap between the two in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4745 versus 3898 for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000. That is a delta of 17.9%, with the Radeon taking the win.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ?

A: The Quadro 2000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M335 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro has nearly three times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is fabricated on a smaller process node?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 is built on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 uses a 40 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but the Quadro 2000 implements DirectX 12 (11_0) while the Radeon R5 M335 implements DirectX 12 (11_1). The Radeon also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the Quadro has no Vulkan entry in the database.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has 320 shading units, compared to 192 on the NVIDIA Quadro 2000. The Quadro counters with 32 texture mapping units versus 20 on the Radeon, and 16 ROPs versus 8.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip. This is a 40 nm part from TSMC with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The architecture dates to the Quadro Fermi generation, released in late 2010.

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, built around the Exo chip. It is fabricated on a more advanced 28 nm process at TSMC, with 690 million transistors on a much smaller 56 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.3 million per square millimeter, which is more than double the Quadro's density. This reflects the newer manufacturing technology and smaller chip footprint.

The compute configurations differ substantially. The Radeon has 320 shading units, which is 66.7% more than the Quadro's 192. However, the Quadro has 32 TMUs against the Radeon's 20, and 16 ROPs against 8. These differences shape the workload characteristics: the Radeon has more raw shader throughput potential, while the Quadro has more texture and pixel processing capacity per clock.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The Quadro uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, achieving only 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro's memory bandwidth advantage is significant, while the Radeon doubles the capacity.

The Radeon supports PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The Radeon also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a feature the Quadro lacks entirely. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, though the Radeon's DirectX 12 implementation is 11_1 versus 11_0 on the Quadro.

Power requirements differ as well. The Quadro has a TDP of 62 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Radeon has no TDP or PSU figure recorded in the database. The Quadro is a single-slot card with a 178 mm length and 111 mm height, while the Radeon has no physical dimensions recorded, as it is a portable device dependent part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins this test with a score of 4745, against 3898 for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000. The delta is 17.9% in favor of the Radeon.

This result aligns with the Radeon's higher average benchmark score of 4752. The Radeon's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4727 (0.5% lower), the AMD Radeon R5 M255 at 4788 (0.7% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4684 (1.5% lower). The Radeon sits comfortably within a narrow band of similar-performing mobile and low-profile desktop parts.

The Quadro 2000's nearest rivals tell a similar story. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 3883, just 0.4% below the Quadro. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919, 0.5% above. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930, 0.8% above. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953, 1.4% above. The Quadro 2000 is positioned at the lower end of this cluster, with all four rivals scoring within a 1.8% range.

The recorded data shows a clear separation between the two GPUs in compute workloads. The Radeon's 17.9% OpenCL advantage is consistent with its higher shading unit count and newer architecture. However, the single benchmark does not capture the full picture, particularly in areas where memory bandwidth matters.

The Quadro 2000's memory bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s is 2.9 times higher than the Radeon's 14.40 GB/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-limited, such as texture-heavy rendering or certain compute kernels, the Quadro could theoretically narrow the gap. The database does not record a Vulkan score for the Quadro, but the Radeon scores 4758 in Geekbench Vulkan, nearly identical to its OpenCL result.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GF106 (NVIDIA) versus Exo (AMD)
• Architecture: Fermi versus GCN 1.0
• Generation: Quadro Fermi (x000) versus Gem System (R5 M300)
• Process Node: 40 nm versus 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,170 million versus 690 million
• Die Size: 238 mm² versus 56 mm²
• Transistor Density: 4.9M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory Size: 1024 MB versus 2 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 versus DDR3
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s
• Shading Units: 192 versus 320
• TMUs: 32 versus 20
• ROPs: 16 versus 8
• Pixel Rate: 5.000 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 20.00 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 480.0 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 62 W versus null
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus null
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus null
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan: null versus 1.2.170
• Dimensions: 178 mm x 111 mm versus null
• Release Date: 2010-12-23 versus 2015-10-20
• Predecessor: Quadro FX Tesla versus Solar System
• Successor: Quadro Kepler versus Polaris Mobile
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD versus null

The Radeon has higher pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and shading units. The Quadro has higher memory bandwidth, more TMUs, more ROPs, and a defined power envelope.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins the only recorded head-to-head test. It scores 4745 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3898 for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000, a 17.9% advantage. The Radeon also holds a higher percentile rank (28th versus 23rd) and a higher average benchmark score (4752 versus 3898).

The Radeon's win is rooted in its architectural advantages. It has 320 shading units versus 192, a 28 nm process versus 40 nm, and more than double the transistor density. Its FP32 throughput of 659.2 GFLOPS is 37.3% higher than the Quadro's 480.0 GFLOPS. The Radeon also supports Vulkan, which the Quadro does not.

The Quadro 2000 is not without strengths. Its GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly three times the Radeon's 14.40 GB/s. It has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, versus 20 and 8 on the Radeon. These specifications suggest the Quadro could perform better in bandwidth-intensive or texture-heavy workloads, but the database does not include a benchmark that isolates these factors.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life GPUs, the Radeon R5 M335 is the better choice for general compute and modern API support. The Quadro 2000 is the better choice for scenarios where memory bandwidth is the limiting factor, or where the single-slot form factor and defined power draw of 62 W are requirements.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins in compute throughput. The recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 4745 is 17.9% higher than the Quadro's 3898. The Radeon's 320 shading units and 659.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput provide a clear edge in shader-heavy and parallel compute workloads. Its higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s) also indicates faster fill-rate performance.

AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins in modern API support. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro 2000. Its DirectX 12 implementation is 11_1, one revision ahead of the Quadro's 11_0. The Radeon also uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which is a newer bus standard than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16.

AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins in memory capacity. The Radeon offers 2 GB of memory versus 1 GB on the Quadro. For workloads that require larger working sets, the Radeon has a clear advantage, even if its DDR3 memory is slower.

NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins in memory bandwidth. The Quadro's 41.60 GB/s is 2.9 times higher than the Radeon's 14.40 GB/s. This is the Quadro's most significant advantage and could matter for bandwidth-bound tasks like certain rendering pipelines or computational kernels.

NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins in texture and pixel processing resources. The Quadro has 32 TMUs versus 20 on the Radeon, and 16 ROPs versus 8. Its texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s is close to the Radeon's 20.60 GTexel/s despite fewer shading units, and its pixel rate, while lower, benefits from the ROP count.

NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins in physical design. It is a single-slot card with a 178 mm length and 111 mm height, making it suitable for compact systems. It has a defined TDP of 62 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Radeon has no physical dimensions or power figures recorded, as it is a portable device dependent part.