AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has an average benchmark score of 6049, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859. That puts the Quadro P2000 roughly 3.2% ahead on average, with both GPUs landing near the bottom third of all GPUs (35th vs 33rd percentile).

Q: How large is the performance gap in the single shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P2000 scores 20125 versus the R5 M435’s 5859. That is a delta of 243.5%, meaning the Quadro P2000 delivers nearly three and a half times the raw compute performance in this workload.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in memory capacity?

A: No. The Quadro P2000 ships with 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, yielding 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M435 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, which produces just 36.00 GB/s. The Quadro P2000 has nearly four times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX feature level?

A: No. The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Radeon R5 M435 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). The Quadro P2000 also supports Vulkan 1.4 compared to Vulkan 1.2.170 on the AMD part.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The Quadro P2000 integrates 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, whereas the R5 M435 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The NVIDIA chip uses a 16 nm process from TSMC, while the AMD chip uses TSMC’s 28 nm process.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU based on average score?

A: For the Quadro P2000, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6077, -0.5%), NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, -0.5%), AMD Radeon 760M (6019, +0.5%), and AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, +0.8%). For the R5 M435, the closest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841, +0.3%), Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929, -1.2%), AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, -1.6%), and NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957, -1.6%).

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP106 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 16 nm process. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip, produced on TSMC’s 28 nm node. This process gap is significant: the Quadro P2000 packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 22.0 million per mm². The R5 M435 contains only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per mm².

The compute resources differ drastically. The Quadro P2000 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The R5 M435 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. That means the Quadro P2000 has 3.2 times the shading units and 5 times the ROP count. Clock speeds also favor the NVIDIA part: the Quadro P2000 runs at a 1076 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost, while the R5 M435 operates at 780 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Quadro P2000 uses a 160-bit memory bus with 5 GB of GDDR5 and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M435 has a 64-bit bus, 2 GB of GDDR5, and 36.00 GB/s bandwidth. The effective memory clock is 7 Gbps on the Quadro P2000 versus 4.5 Gbps on the Radeon. The Quadro P2000 also supports a richer feature set, with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the R5 M435 tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Quadro P2000 is a single-slot discrete card with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and no power connectors, while the R5 M435 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Quadro P2000 connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, but the R5 M435 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The NVIDIA card has a 75 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W; the AMD part has no listed TDP, power connector, or PSU requirement.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro P2000. The Quadro P2000 scores 20125, while the Radeon R5 M435 manages 5859. That 243.5% delta means the Quadro P2000 outperforms the R5 M435 by a factor of roughly 3.4 in this compute-oriented workload. The wins tally is 1-0 in favor of the Quadro P2000.

Beyond that single shared test, the broader benchmark suite shows the Quadro P2000’s strengths. In Passmark G3D, the Quadro P2000 scores 6956, and its Passmark G2D score is 626. Compute performance in Passmark GPU Compute reaches 2933. The Quadro P2000 also has Geekbench Vulkan score of 23566, which is higher than its OpenCL score, indicating strong API versatility. The R5 M435 has no Vulkan score listed and only one OpenCL score, making it difficult to assess its performance across multiple workloads.

The average benchmark score difference is modest — 6049 for the Quadro P2000 versus 5859 for the R5 M435 — but this masks the extreme variance in the OpenCL test. The Quadro P2000’s nearest rivals all sit within a narrow band around 6000-6080, with deltas under 1%. The R5 M435’s nearest rivals are similarly clustered, ranging from 5841 to 5957, with deltas between -1.6% and +0.3%. Both GPUs are near the 33rd-35th percentile of all GPUs, suggesting they are entry-level or low-end parts in their respective eras.

The pixel and texture rates reinforce the gap. The Quadro P2000 achieves 59.20 GPixel/s and 94.72 GTexel/s, while the R5 M435 delivers 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s. That is a 7.2x advantage in pixel throughput and a 4.6x advantage in texture throughput for the NVIDIA part. FP32 compute is 3.031 TFLOPS on the Quadro P2000 versus 659.2 GFLOPS on the R5 M435 — a 4.6x difference. The Quadro P2000 even lists FP16 performance at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the AMD part has no FP16 figure.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | AMD Radeon R5 M435 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |

| Process node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 690 million |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Base clock | 1076 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1480 MHz | 1030 MHz |

| Memory clock | 7 Gbps effective | 4.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 5 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory bus | 160 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 140.2 GB/s | 36.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1024 | 320 |

| TMUs | 64 | 20 |

| ROPs | 40 | 8 |

| Pixel rate | 59.20 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 94.72 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.031 TFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

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

| Slot width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| TDP | 75 W | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior GPU in nearly every measurable way. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20125 versus 5859 for the Radeon R5 M435 represents a 243.5% advantage, and the Quadro P2000 also leads in peak pixel rate, texture fill rate, FP32 compute, memory bandwidth, and shading resources. The Quadro P2000 has 5 times the ROPs, 3.2 times the shading units, and nearly 4 times the memory bandwidth of the R5 M435. It also supports a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Users should pick the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 if they need a discrete, single-slot card with multiple DisplayPort outputs, a 75 W TDP, and no external power connector. The 5 GB memory capacity and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for workloads that require moderate memory bandwidth, though its 35th percentile standing shows it is not a high-end part. The Quadro P2000’s nearest rivals are all within 0.8% of its average score, indicating that it is competitively positioned in its class.

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is an integrated part with a 64-bit memory bus and only 2 GB of GDDR5. Its 33rd percentile ranking places it slightly below the Quadro P2000, and its single benchmark result offers no evidence of any workload where it wins. The R5 M435’s nearest rivals are within 1.6% of its average score, suggesting that it performs on par with older low-end mobile GPUs like the Radeon HD 8730M and Quadro K620M. Given that the R5 M435 has no listed TDP, no power connector info, and portable-device-dependent outputs, it is clearly designed for laptops or compact systems where the Quadro P2000 would not fit. For anyone choosing between these two, the Quadro P2000 wins on every metric in the fact pack, and the R5 M435 should only be considered if the integrated form factor is a hard requirement.