AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 are both end-of-life mobile GPUs, but they target entirely different use cases. Benchmark data from the database shows the Radeon R5 M335 winning both recorded head-to-head tests, with a 16.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL (4745 vs 4071) and a 13.5% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan (4758 vs 4191). The R5 M335 also holds a higher overall percentile ranking at 28th vs the K2000's 24th, and its average benchmark score of 4752 substantially outpaces the K2000's 3964.

However, the Quadro K2000 is the more capable workstation part in several measurable ways. It carries a 128-bit memory bus versus the R5 M335's 64-bit bus, delivers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s, and features a larger 118 mm² die with 1,270 million transistors compared to the R5 M335's 56 mm² die and 690 million transistors. The K2000 also supports more display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2) versus the portable-device-dependent outputs of the R5 M335.

The verdict from the data: pick the AMD Radeon R5 M335 for raw compute and graphics API performance in mobile systems, especially where Vulkan workloads matter. Pick the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 for applications that benefit from higher memory bandwidth, greater texture throughput (30.53 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s), and professional display connectivity. The K2000's single-slot design and 51 W TDP make it suitable for compact workstations, while the R5 M335 appears designed for thin-and-light portables with no power connector requirements.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Exo, belonging to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses the Kepler architecture on the GK107 chip, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts diverge significantly: the K2000 packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, while the R5 M335 fits 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die. Interestingly, the R5 M335 has a higher transistor density at 12.3M per mm² versus the K2000's 10.8M per mm². This density advantage reflects GCN's design priorities versus Kepler's larger, more power-hungry structure.

Memory architecture differs sharply. The R5 M335 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. That is over 4.4 times the memory bandwidth for the NVIDIA part, a critical factor for texture-heavy workloads. The memory clocks reflect this: the R5 M335 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the K2000 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Compute resources also differ. The K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus the R5 M335's 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite fewer ROPs, the R5 M335 achieves a higher pixel rate at 8.240 GPixel/s versus the K2000's 7.632 GPixel/s. The K2000 leads in texture rate at 30.53 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s, and in FP32 at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS.

API support shows a mixed picture. Both support DirectX 12 (though the R5 M335 lists 11_1 and the K2000 lists 11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (1.2.170 for AMD, 1.2.175 for NVIDIA). The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the AMD part versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the NVIDIA part. The K2000 also has a defined 51 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU, while the R5 M335 lists no TDP, suggesting it is a lower-power mobile part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000, with 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR5 bus, versus the AMD Radeon R5 M335's 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 bus.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M335 outperform the Quadro K2000 in benchmarks?

A: Yes. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R5 M335 scores 4745 versus 4071 (16.6% higher), and in Geekbench Vulkan it scores 4758 versus 4191 (13.5% higher).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, compared to 320 on the Radeon R5 M335.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of the Quadro K2000?

A: The K2000 measures 202 mm (8 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, and it is a single-slot card. The R5 M335 has no listed dimensions.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The R5 M335 was released in October 2015, and the K2000 was released in February 2013.

Q: Which GPU has better API support for modern software?

A: Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan. The R5 M335 lists Vulkan 1.2.170, while the K2000 lists Vulkan 1.2.175, a marginally newer version.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Radeon R5 M335 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The Quadro K2000 uses Kepler on the same 28 nm TSMC process but with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. Transistor density favors AMD at 12.3M per mm² versus 10.8M per mm².

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The R5 M335 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth and 900 MHz memory clock (1800 Mbps effective). The K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth and 1000 MHz memory clock (4 Gbps effective).

Compute resources: the R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are close (8.240 GPixel/s for AMD, 7.632 GPixel/s for NVIDIA), but texture rates differ more substantially (20.60 GTexel/s vs 30.53 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is 659.2 GFLOPS for AMD versus 732.7 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Power and physical specs: the K2000 has a 51 W TDP, single-slot form factor, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The R5 M335 lists no TDP, no slot width, and no PSU requirement. Both have no power connectors. The K2000 measures 202 mm by 111 mm and offers 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The R5 M335's outputs are listed as portable-device dependent.

Interface and API: the R5 M335 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, with slightly different version numbers (12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.2.170 vs 1.2.175).

Release timing also differs: the R5 M335 launched in October 2015, the K2000 in February 2013. The database lists the K2000's launch MSRP as 599 USD, while the R5 M335 has no launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R5 M335 scores 4745 against the K2000's 4071, a delta of 16.6%. This is a decisive margin, placing the AMD part well ahead in general-purpose compute workloads. The R5 M335's nearest rivals in this score range include the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727, 0.5% slower), the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788, 0.7% faster), and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684, 1.5% slower). The K2000, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0.2% slower) and NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, 0.2% slower).

In Geekbench Vulkan, the R5 M335 again leads with 4758 versus 4191, a 13.5% advantage. This is notable because Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the R5 M335's lead here suggests its GCN architecture handles the API more efficiently than Kepler. The K2000's Vulkan score of 4191 is its second-highest recorded benchmark, trailing its OpenCL score of 4071 and its Metal score of 3630. The R5 M335 has no Metal score recorded.

The overall benchmark picture reinforces the head-to-head results. The R5 M335's average benchmark score is 4752, while the K2000's is 3964, a gap of roughly 19.9%. The percentile rankings confirm the hierarchy: the R5 M335 sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the K2000 sits at the 24th percentile.

However, the K2000's strengths lie outside these compute benchmarks. Its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than four times the R5 M335's 14.40 GB/s, which could translate to better performance in memory-bound professional applications. Its texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s is 48% higher than the R5 M335's 20.60 GTexel/s, and its FP32 throughput of 732.7 GFLOPS exceeds the AMD part's 659.2 GFLOPS by over 11%. The K2000 also has double the ROP count (16 vs 8), though the R5 M335 still manages a higher pixel rate.

In terms of nearest rivals, the R5 M335's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 M255 at 4788 (0.7% faster), while the K2000's closest is the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 (0.3% faster). The data shows the R5 M335 punching above its architectural weight in compute tests, while the K2000's value proposition rests on bandwidth, texture throughput, and professional display features. For raw benchmark scores, the AMD part is the clear winner; for memory-heavy and workstation-oriented tasks, the NVIDIA part has measurable advantages.