AMD Radeon R5 M420 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M420 and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by roughly five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute performance, but the specifics of each design reveal different strengths that matter depending on the intended workload. The AMD part leads in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, but the NVIDIA card brings a different balance of memory bandwidth and texture throughput that may suit particular tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split between these two mobile GPUs is narrow but definitive based on the recorded data. The AMD Radeon R5 M420 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 3956 against 3434 for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M. That is a 15.2% advantage for the AMD part, a meaningful margin in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

Looking at the architectural resources, the AMD card has the edge in shading power. It carries 320 shading units against 192 for the NVIDIA part, and its peak FP32 throughput is 544.0 GFLOPS compared to 422.4 GFLOPS. This gives the AMD Radeon R5 M420 a theoretical advantage in general-purpose compute tasks and shader-heavy rendering. The AMD part also has a higher pixel fill rate at 6.800 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s, which suggests better performance in fill-limited scenarios like high-resolution texturing.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, however, wins in memory bandwidth. It has a 128-bit memory bus with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon R5 M420 is limited to a 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s. That 80% bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA matters for workloads that are memory-bound. The NVIDIA card also has more texture mapping units (32 versus 20) and a slightly higher texture fill rate of 17.60 GTexel/s versus 17.00 GTexel/s. In texture-heavy scenes or applications that rely on rapid texel fetching, the Quadro 2000M can compensate for its lower shader count.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different manufacturing generations. The AMD Radeon R5 M420 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture and uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M uses the older Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process gap gives the AMD part a significant density advantage: 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter versus 4.9 million for the NVIDIA chip.

The physical chip sizes tell a similar story. The AMD "Jet" chip houses 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The NVIDIA GF106 chip packs 1,170 million transistors onto a 238 mm² die. Despite having nearly twice the transistor count, the NVIDIA chip is more than four times larger in area, which explains its higher power draw and older node.

Memory configurations differ in capacity and interface width. The AMD card comes with 4GB of DDR3 memory, while the NVIDIA card has 2 GB. The NVIDIA card uses a 128-bit memory bus, doubling the AMD's 64-bit interface, which results in the bandwidth advantage noted earlier. The clock speeds also differ: the AMD GPU runs at a base clock of 780 MHz with a boost of 850 MHz, while the NVIDIA part has no base or boost clock specified in the database. The NVIDIA memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), slightly lower than the AMD's 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), but the wider bus compensates.

API support is another differentiator. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0) but has no Vulkan support in the database. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. This means the AMD part has a more modern feature set for newer games and applications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is GeekbenchOpenCL, and it is a clear win for the AMD Radeon R5 M420. The AMD scores 3956, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434, giving the AMD a 15.2% lead. This result aligns with the raw compute resources: the AMD has 544.0 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, and the NVIDIA has 422.4 GFLOPS. The compute advantage translates directly into the benchmark result.

The delta between the two is not trivial. In terms of the database's nearest rival comparison, the AMD R5 M420 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000M sits at the 21st percentile. That two-percentile gap is modest, but the benchmark delta is more pronounced. The AMD's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (score 3957, delta 0%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (score 3953, delta 0.1%), showing that the AMD is right in the middle of that performance band. The Quadro 2000M, in contrast, sits near the Intel HD Graphics 530 (score 3332, delta 3.1%) and the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (score 3389, delta 1.3%), which puts it in a lower tier overall.

The texture rate is nearly identical: 17.00 GTexel/s for AMD versus 17.60 for NVIDIA. This means that in texture-bound workloads, the two cards will perform similarly, despite the NVIDIA having more TMUs, because the AMD compensates with higher clocks. The pixel rate is the opposite: AMD has 6.800 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s, so the AMD is about 55% faster at filling pixels.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward recommendation for most users. The AMD Radeon R5 M420 is the faster GPU overall. Its 15.2% lead in the GeekbenchOpenCL benchmark, combined with a higher shading throughput and pixel fill rate, makes it the better choice for compute workloads, modern gaming, and general graphics acceleration. The 4 GB memory capacity is also double that of the NVIDIA, which helps with larger textures and datasets.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, however, has its own niche. Its memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s is 80% higher than the AMD's 16.00 GB/s, which can be decisive in bandwidth-starved tasks like certain filtering operations or high-resolution rendering that relies on large texture fetches. Its texture rate is also slightly higher. For professional mobile workstation applications that were optimized for Fermi-era NVIDIA hardware, the Quadro 2000M may still be functional, but the data does not show it winning any benchmark.

The production status is end-of-life for both parts, so this is not a decision between current products. The R5 M420 is from 2016, while the Quadro 2000M is from 2011. The generation gap is clear, and the newer AMD part holds a modest but consistent performance lead. Based strictly on the measurements, the Radeon is the better performer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher GeekbenchOpenCL score?

The AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The AMD part leads by 15.2%.

Q: Can the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M match the AMD in memory bandwidth?

No, the Quadro 2000M has a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon R5 M420 has a 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA has a 80% bandwidth advantage, but that does not translate to a benchmark win.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

The AMD Radeon R5 M420 has 320 shading units, compared to 192 on the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M. The AMD also has higher FP32 throughput at 544.0 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the memory sizes of each GPU?

The AMD Radeon R5 M420 has 4 GB of DDR3, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of DDR3. The AMD has twice the capacity but half the bus width.

Q: Which architecture is more modern?

The AMD uses GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA uses Fermi on a 40 nm process. The AMD also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support in the database.

Q: Is the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M a more power-efficient part?

The database lists a TDP of 55 W for the Quadro 2000M, while no TDP is specified for the Radeon R5 M420. The AMD is an integrated IGP, so it is likely more power-efficient, but the data does not provide a direct comparison.

Specification Differences

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

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

| 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 | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 850 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.800 GPixel/s | 4.400 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.00 GTexel/s | 17.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 544.0 GFLOPS | 422.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 55 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | None |

| Release Year | 2016-05-14 | 2011-01-12 |

| GeekbenchOpenCL | 3956 | 3434 |

| Percentile | 23 | 21 |