AMD Radeon R5 M420 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

# FAQ

Q: How do the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and AMD Radeon R5 M420 compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Quadro K2000 has an average benchmark score of 3964, while the Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956. This places the K2000 just 0.2% ahead on average, with the R5 M420 sitting in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs versus the K2000's 24th percentile.

Q: What is the only head-to-head benchmark result available between these two cards?

A: The sole direct comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro K2000 scores 4071 against the Radeon R5 M420's 3956. That gives the K2000 a 2.9% advantage in this specific test.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Quadro K2000 contains 384 shading units and 32 TMUs, while the Radeon R5 M420 has 320 shading units and 20 TMUs. The K2000 also has 16 ROPs compared to just 8 on the R5 M420.

Q: How do memory configurations differ between the two GPUs?

A: The Quadro K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M420 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.00 GB/s — a quarter of the K2000's bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for each chip?

A: The K2000's GK107 chip packs 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the R5 M420's Jet chip contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Despite being smaller, the Jet chip has a higher transistor density at 12.3M per mm² versus 10.8M per mm².

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The Radeon R5 M420 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards offer OpenGL 4.6 support.

# Architecture Differences

The Quadro K2000 and Radeon R5 M420 represent fundamentally different architectural philosophies despite sharing the same 28 nm TSMC process node. The K2000 is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, a design that emphasizes raw throughput through a larger die. Its 1,270 million transistors occupy 118 mm², giving it a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The R5 M420, by contrast, uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip — a much smaller 56 mm² die holding 690 million transistors, achieving a higher density of 12.3M per mm².

The shading resources tell a clear story of where each card's priorities lie. The K2000 fields 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, translating to a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s. The R5 M420 counters with 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs, resulting in a pixel rate of 6.800 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.00 GTexel/s. This means the K2000 holds a 12% advantage in pixel throughput and a staggering 80% lead in texture fill rate — a difference that will manifest in any texture-heavy workload.

Clock behavior also diverges significantly. The R5 M420 lists explicit base and boost clocks of 780 MHz and 850 MHz respectively, while the K2000's base and boost clocks are not specified in the data. Instead, the K2000's memory runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, whereas the R5 M420's memory also runs at 1000 MHz but only achieves 2 Gbps effective — a direct consequence of the different memory types. The K2000's GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus creates a fourfold bandwidth advantage over the R5 M420's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus: 64.00 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s.

The FP32 compute figures reinforce the performance hierarchy. The K2000 delivers 732.7 GFLOPS against the R5 M420's 544.0 GFLOPS — a 35% gap in raw floating-point capability. Neither card offers FP16 support, and both lack dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. Notably, the R5 M420 is labeled as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the K2000 is a single-slot discrete card using PCIe 2.0 x16. The K2000 draws 51 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W; the R5 M420's TDP is not specified.

The release timeline shows the R5 M420 arriving in May 2016, more than three years after the K2000's February 2013 debut. Both are now end-of-life products, but they belong to different generational lineages: the K2000 sits in the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation with a Quadro Fermi predecessor and Quadro Maxwell successor, while the R5 M420 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M400) generation, succeeding Solar System and preceding Polaris Mobile.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it paints a picture of two closely matched competitors. The Quadro K2000 scores 4071, while the Radeon R5 M420 manages 3956. This 2.9% difference is meaningful but far from overwhelming. In practical terms, the K2000's advantage in this test likely stems from its superior memory bandwidth — 64.00 GB/s versus just 16.00 GB/s — and its higher FP32 throughput of 732.7 GFLOPS compared to 544.0 GFLOPS.

Interestingly, the average benchmark scores across all available tests narrow the gap considerably. The K2000 averages 3964, while the R5 M420 averages 3956 — a mere 0.2% difference. This suggests that the K2000's OpenCL advantage may be partially offset in other workload types, though the R5 M420 only has a single benchmark score listed (Geekbench OpenCL), while the K2000 also has Geekbench Metal (3630) and Geekbench Vulkan (4191) results.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The K2000's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2, which scores 3977 — 0.3% above the K2000. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957) and GeForce GT 745M (3953) sit just below, within 0.2% and 0.3% respectively. For the R5 M420, the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 again leads at 3977, this time 0.5% higher, while the GeForce 830M (3957) is essentially tied, and the GeForce GT 745M (3953) trails by 0.1%.

The verdict from this data is clear: these two GPUs are statistical neighbors. The K2000 wins the only head-to-head test by 2.9%, but the broader benchmark landscape shows them separated by fractions of a percent. The K2000's architectural advantages — more shading units, higher memory bandwidth, greater compute throughput — do not translate into a dominant benchmark lead over the R5 M420. This could indicate that the R5 M420's newer GCN architecture extracts more efficiency per resource, or that the OpenCL workload does not fully stress the K2000's strengths.

# Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every specification category. The K2000 uses the GK107 chip with Kepler architecture, while the R5 M420 employs the Jet chip with GCN 1.0. Transistor counts differ substantially: 1,270 million versus 690 million, with die sizes of 118 mm² and 56 mm² respectively. The R5 M420 achieves a higher transistor density (12.3M/mm²) despite having fewer total transistors.

Clock specifications show the K2000 with no listed base or boost clocks, while the R5 M420 has a 780 MHz base and 850 MHz boost. Memory clocks are both 1000 MHz, but effective speeds differ: 4 Gbps for the K2000 versus 2 Gbps for the R5 M420. Memory configuration varies in size (2 GB versus 4 GB), type (GDDR5 versus DDR3), bus width (128-bit versus 64-bit), and bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s).

Compute resources differ across the board: 384 versus 320 shading units, 32 versus 20 TMUs, and 16 versus 8 ROPs. Pixel rate (7.632 versus 6.800 GPixel/s), texture rate (30.53 versus 17.00 GTexel/s), and FP32 performance (732.7 versus 544.0 GFLOPS) all favor the K2000. The K2000 has a specified TDP of 51 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W; the R5 M420 lists neither. Slot width differs — the K2000 is single-slot, the R5 M420 is IGP. The K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R5 M420 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs also differ: the K2000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the R5 M420 is listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Physical dimensions exist only for the K2000: 202 mm length and 111 mm height. The R5 M420 has no listed dimensions, consistent with its IGP classification. API support shows the R5 M420 with a slightly higher DirectX version (12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)) but the K2000 with a newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The K2000 launched with an MSRP of 599 USD; the R5 M420 has no listed MSRP.

# The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. In raw architectural terms, the Quadro K2000 is the superior product: it has more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, four times the memory bandwidth, 35% higher FP32 compute, and a 2.9% win in the only head-to-head benchmark. Yet the average benchmark scores tell a different story — a 0.2% separation that puts these cards in the same performance class.

For users who prioritize OpenCL compute workloads, the K2000's 4071 score versus 3956 for the R5 M420 makes it the safer choice. The K2000 also offers broader benchmark coverage with three tests (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan) versus the R5 M420's single OpenCL result. The K2000's 24th percentile ranking versus the R5 M420's 23rd percentile confirms this marginal overall advantage.

However, the R5 M420 counters with double the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), a newer architecture (GCN 1.0 versus Kepler), and a later release date (May 2016 versus February 2013). Its higher DirectX support level (12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)) could matter for certain modern applications. The R5 M420's IGP form factor and portable-device-dependent display outputs suggest it is designed for laptops, while the K2000's single-slot, DVI/DisplayPort configuration indicates a workstation-oriented discrete card.

The K2000 is the pick for desktop workstation users who need confirmed OpenCL performance and don't mind the higher TDP of 51 W. The R5 M420 suits mobile scenarios where its integrated nature and larger memory pool are assets, accepting lower bandwidth and compute throughput. Neither card is a clear winner; the data shows two GPUs that essentially trade blows within a 3% margin.

# Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000 wins in every measurable performance category from the FACT PACK. It takes the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test by 2.9% (4071 versus 3956). It leads in texture rate by 80% (30.53 versus 17.00 GTexel/s), in FP32 compute by 35% (732.7 versus 544.0 GFLOPS), and in pixel rate by 12% (7.632 versus 6.800 GPixel/s). Its memory bandwidth advantage is the most dramatic — 64.00 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s — which will benefit any workload that repeatedly accesses large datasets. The K2000 also shows up in three separate benchmark entries, while the R5 M420 appears in only one, giving the K2000 a more complete performance profile.

The Radeon R5 M420 wins in memory capacity, offering 4 GB versus the K2000's 2 GB. This could prove beneficial in applications that require large working sets, even if the DDR3 memory is slower. The R5 M420 also has a higher transistor density (12.3M/mm² versus 10.8M/mm²) and a newer DirectX support level (12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)). Its boost clock of 850 MHz, while not directly comparable to the K2000's unspecified clocks, indicates some dynamic frequency headroom. The R5 M420's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is newer than the K2000's PCIe 2.0 x16, though the practical bandwidth implications are unclear without direct comparison data.

The benchmark deltas from nearest rivals provide additional context. The K2000 is 0.2% ahead of the GeForce 830M and 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GT 745M, while trailing the Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 0.3%. The R5 M420 is 0.1% ahead of the GeForce GT 745M and essentially tied with the GeForce 830M, but trails the Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 0.5%. These micro-percentages reinforce that both cards occupy the same performance tier, with the K2000 holding a slight edge in most comparisons. The K2000 wins all performance-oriented categories, while the R5 M420 wins capacity and compatibility categories — a distribution that lets each card claim a distinct use case.