AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains one direct comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D and the AMD Radeon R5 M335, and it is not close. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4745, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. That is a 17.2% advantage for the AMD part, a decisive margin in a single compute workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the gap persists. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 carries an average benchmark score of 4752 across its two recorded tests (OpenCL at 4745 and Vulkan at 4758). The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has an average of 3930 from its single OpenCL result. The difference between these averages is roughly 21%, which aligns with the head-to-head delta.

The AMD card also sits higher in the overall GPU percentile ranking. The Radeon R5 M335 ranks at the 28th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 2000D sits at the 23rd percentile. This places the AMD part in a slightly stronger position relative to the full field, though both are firmly in the lower half of the performance distribution.

When measured against their nearest rivals, the two cards reveal interesting context. The Quadro 2000D is within 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919), essentially a tie. It trails the GeForce GT 745M by 0.6%, the Radeon R5 M420 by 0.7%, and the GeForce 830M by 0.7%. These are all sub-1% deltas, meaning the Quadro 2000D sits in a very tight performance cluster. The Radeon R5 M335, by contrast, leads the Quadro P400 by 1.5%, trails the Radeon R5 M255 by 0.7%, and sits within 0.5% of the Radeon R8 M445DX (4727). It also trails the GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB by 0.8%, which is notable only because it shows how close the R5 M335 is to that much larger part in this particular synthetic workload.

The win tally is one-sided: the AMD Radeon R5 M335 claims 1 win in the head-to-head tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D claims 0. There are no benchmark categories where the Quadro comes out ahead in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip, built on the Fermi architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 uses the Exo chip, built on GCN 1.0, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 40 nm versus 28 nm.

Transistor counts tell a contrasting story. The Quadro 2000D packs 1,170 million transistors on a die size of 238 mm². The Radeon R5 M335 has 690 million transistors on a die of just 56 mm². The transistor density reveals the process advantage clearly: the AMD chip achieves 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter, while the NVIDIA chip manages only 4.9 million per square millimeter. The Radeon is far more compact despite having fewer total transistors.

The memory subsystems are very different. The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. The Radeon R5 M335 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of just 14.40 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has nearly three times the memory bandwidth, though the AMD card has twice the capacity.

Compute resources are configured differently. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD part has more shaders but fewer texture units and half the ROPs. Pixel rate favors the AMD card at 8.240 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card. Texture rates are close: 20.60 GTexel/s for the AMD part versus 20.00 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part. FP32 compute also favors the AMD card at 659.2 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS.

API support differs in the details. Both support DirectX 12, but the Quadro 2000D lists it as 12 (11_0) while the Radeon R5 M335 lists 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card adds Vulkan 1.2.170 support, while the NVIDIA card has no recorded Vulkan support. Bus interfaces also differ: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

The Quadro 2000D is a desktop card with a single-slot design, 178 mm length, 111 mm height, and 2x DVI display outputs. It has no power connectors and a 62 W TDP, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Radeon R5 M335 is a mobile part with no recorded dimensions, slot width, or TDP, and its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins the only recorded benchmark, and it wins by a substantial margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 17.2% lead suggests the GCN architecture's higher shader count and newer process node translate directly into compute performance. The AMD card also shows Vulkan capability, scoring 4758 in that test, which gives it a second data point that the NVIDIA card simply does not have.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. However, its memory bandwidth advantage (41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) and its larger 128-bit bus could favor bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though no such benchmark appears in the database. Its 1024 MB GDDR5 memory is also faster in type, but the capacity is half that of the AMD card.

For use-case analysis, the data points to the AMD part being the better compute performer in synthetic OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The Radeon's higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS) and higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s) reinforce this. The Quadro's strengths lie in its memory subsystem, which is not directly tested in the recorded benchmarks.

The Radeon R5 M335 also has a newer release date, arriving in October 2015 versus October 2011 for the Quadro. Both are listed as end-of-life products, but the AMD part is from a later generation with architectural improvements.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 is the faster GPU. It wins the head-to-head OpenCL test by 17.2%, has a higher average benchmark score (4752 versus 3930), and ranks at a higher percentile among all GPUs (28th versus 23rd). The AMD part also has Vulkan support, which the NVIDIA card lacks, giving it access to a broader range of modern compute workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D does have a counterargument in its memory design. Its GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 41.60 GB/s, nearly three times the bandwidth of the Radeon's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth bound, the Quadro could potentially outperform the Radeon, but no such test appears in the recorded data.

The Quadro 2000D also has a desktop form factor with a 62 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU, making it a plug-and-play card for a workstation. The Radeon R5 M335 is a mobile part with no recorded power figures, so it is not a direct replacement in a desktop context.

For a buyer choosing between these two based on the database, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 is the clear winner in recorded compute performance. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is only worth considering if the specific workload requires its memory bandwidth advantage, which is not reflected in any benchmark score here. The Radeon also offers twice the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1024 MB), which may matter for larger datasets.

The Quadro's nearest rival comparisons show it is competitive with its immediate peers, but those peers are all at a similar performance level. The Radeon's nearest rival list includes a more varied group, but it holds its own with positive deltas against the Quadro P400 and the Radeon R8 M445DX. The data is unambiguous: the AMD part is the better performer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4745, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930, giving the AMD part a 17.2% lead.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D support Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists no Vulkan support for the Quadro 2000D. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth from 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has 320 shading units, compared to 192 on the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D delivers 480.0 GFLOPS.

Q: How does each card rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 ranks at the 28th percentile, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D ranks at the 23rd percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D | AMD Radeon R5 M335 |

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

| Chip | GF106 | Exo |

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |

| Process node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 690 million |

| Die size | 238 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor density | 4.9M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Memory size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory clock | 650 MHz, 2.6 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory bandwidth | 41.60 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading units | 192 | 320 |

| TMUs | 32 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel rate | 5.000 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 20.00 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 480.0 GFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 62 W | Not recorded |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Not recorded |

| Power connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| Bus interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | 2x DVI | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | Not recorded | 1.2.170 |

| Release date | 2011-10-04 | 2015-10-20 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not recorded |

| Dimensions | 178 mm length, 111 mm height | Not recorded |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Tesla | Solar System |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler | Polaris Mobile |