GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a narrow margin. The AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898. That gives the AMD part a 1.5% lead. In absolute terms, that is 58 points, a razor-thin edge that falls well within run-to-run variance for most OpenCL workloads. The data shows the R5 M420 wins the sole head-to-head test, but the practical difference is negligible for real-world compute tasks.

Context from the nearest-rival tables reinforces how close these two are. The R5 M420 sits at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, and its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M, scores 3957, just one point higher. The Quadro 2000 also lands at the 23rd percentile, with the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scoring 3883, a 0.4% gap. Both cards occupy the same performance tier, and neither can claim a meaningful compute advantage over the other.

Looking at the deltaPct values in the rival lists, the R5 M420 trails the Quadro K2000 by 0.2% (3964 vs 3956) and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 0.5% (3977 vs 3956). The Quadro 2000 trails the Quadro 2000D by 0.8% (3930 vs 3898) and the GeForce GT 745M by 1.4% (3953 vs 3898). These numbers place both cards in a tight cluster where a single benchmark iteration could reorder the rankings. The R5 M420 edges ahead in the direct comparison, but the Quadro 2000 is equally competitive against its own peer group.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is substantial, reflecting their different release eras. The R5 M420 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on the Jet chip, built at TSMC's 28 nm process. The Quadro 2000 uses NVIDIA's Fermi architecture on the GF106 chip, fabricated at TSMC's 40 nm node. That process difference is significant: the R5 M420 packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The Quadro 2000 has 1,170 million transistors spread across a much larger 238 mm² die, giving it just 4.9M per mm². The newer 28 nm node allows the AMD part to achieve more than double the transistor density of the older Fermi chip.

Shader resources favor the R5 M420 in count but not in configuration. The AMD card has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. So the R5 M420 has 66.7% more shaders, while the Quadro 2000 has 60% more TMUs and double the ROPs. This creates a different workload profile: the AMD part leans toward compute-heavy shader work, while the NVIDIA card has more texture and pixel throughput per clock.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The R5 M420 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s, 2.6 times the bandwidth despite having a quarter of the capacity. The Quadro's memory runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the R5 M420's memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The wider bus and faster memory type give the NVIDIA card a clear bandwidth advantage.

Clock speeds differ as well. The R5 M420 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 850 MHz, while the Quadro 2000 lists no base or boost figures, only its memory clock. The AMD card's boost behavior gives it a theoretical FP32 peak of 544.0 GFLOPS, compared to the Quadro's 480.0 GFLOPS. Pixel rate favors the R5 M420 at 6.800 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, but texture rate favors the Quadro at 20.00 GTexel/s versus 17.00 GTexel/s. Each card wins one of these throughput metrics.

API support also differs. The R5 M420 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The AMD card's Vulkan capability is a notable feature advantage for modern compute and emulation workloads.

Power and physical characteristics differ considerably. The Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W, a single-slot design, and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. It measures 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The R5 M420 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no listed TDP, power connector requirements, or physical dimensions, its display outputs are portable-device dependent. This makes the R5 M420 a mobile-oriented part, while the Quadro 2000 is a discrete desktop workstation card.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956, which is 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000's 3898. This is the only direct benchmark comparison in the data.

Q: How do these cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 2000 has a significant advantage with 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth from its 128-bit GDDR5 interface, while the R5 M420 manages only 16.00 GB/s from a 64-bit DDR3 bus.

Q: Which architecture is newer?

A: The R5 M420 uses GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000 uses Fermi on a 40 nm process. The R5 M420 also has higher transistor density at 12.3M per mm² versus 4.9M per mm².

Q: Does either card support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the R5 M420 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 2000 does not have a Vulkan version listed in its specifications.

Q: What are the form factor differences?

A: The R5 M420 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with portable-device-dependent outputs. The Quadro 2000 is a single-slot discrete card measuring 178 mm by 111 mm, with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R5 M420 has 320 shading units, while the Quadro 2000 has 192. However, the Quadro 2000 has more TMUs (32 vs 20) and ROPs (16 vs 8).

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M420 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,170 million |

| Die size | 56 mm² | 238 mm² |

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

| Base clock | 780 MHz |, |

| Boost clock | 850 MHz |, |

| Memory clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Shading units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 6.800 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 17.00 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 544.0 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP |, | 62 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power connectors |, | None |

| Suggested PSU |, | 250 W |

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

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 |, |

| Dimensions |, | 178 mm × 111 mm |

| Release date | 2016-05-14 | 2010-12-23 |

| Launch MSRP |, | 599 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M420 wins on raw compute shader throughput. Its 320 shading units and higher boost clock deliver 544.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 13.3% higher than the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS. The Geekbench OpenCL result reflects this: the R5 M420 leads by 1.5%. For OpenCL compute workloads that are shader-bound and don't require heavy memory traffic, the R5 M420 has the edge. Its Vulkan 1.2.170 support also makes it the more forward-looking choice for modern APIs, while the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed. The R5 M420 also wins on pixel rate at 6.800 GPixel/s, and its 4 GB memory capacity is four times the Quadro's 1024 MB, though the Quadro's bandwidth advantage means that capacity is slower to access.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins on memory bandwidth and texture throughput. Its 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth is 2.6 times higher than the R5 M420's 16.00 GB/s, which matters for bandwidth-sensitive workloads like large texture fetches, video processing, or any compute kernel that streams data. The Quadro also has 32 TMUs versus 20, giving it a 20.00 GTexel/s texture rate compared to 17.00 GTexel/s. This makes the Quadro better suited for texture-heavy rendering tasks. Its 128-bit GDDR5 memory interface also gives it a clear advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios where ROP throughput (16 vs 8) and memory bandwidth dominate.

For use-case split, the R5 M420 fits mobile or compact systems where integrated graphics are mandatory and where shader-heavy compute or Vulkan-based workloads are priorities. Its 28 nm process and higher transistor density also make it the more power-efficient design per unit of performance. The Quadro 2000 fits desktop workstation builds where the 62 W TDP, single-slot form factor, and no power connector requirement make it easy to install, and where its GDDR5 bandwidth and DVI/DisplayPort outputs serve professional display needs. The Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16 interface also provides more lanes than the R5 M420's PCIe 3.0 x8, which can reduce latency for data transfers in workstation workflows.

The release dates tell the story: the R5 M420 launched in May 2016, while the Quadro 2000 launched in December 2010. The 5.5-year gap explains the architectural differences, GCN 1.0 on 28 nm versus Fermi on 40 nm. The Quadro 2000's 599 USD launch MSRP reflects its workstation positioning, while the R5 M420 has no listed MSRP as an integrated part. Both are end-of-life products, and both sit at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs. Neither card is competitive with modern hardware, but for legacy systems, the R5 M420 offers better raw compute and API support, while the Quadro 2000 offers superior memory bandwidth and texture performance. Choose based on workload: shader-heavy OpenCL and Vulkan favor the R5 M420; bandwidth-heavy rendering and texture work favor the Quadro 2000.