AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data splits the two GPUs evenly, with one win apiece across the two shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 posts a score of 4071 against the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s 3708, giving NVIDIA an 8.9% advantage. That margin is meaningful for a compute-oriented workload, but it is not a decisive blowout. The bigger story comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD Radeon R7 M260 surges to 5289 while the Quadro K2000 manages only 4191. That is a 26.2% swing in AMD’s favor, a substantial gap that flips the overall comparison.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 records 4499 across its two tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 averages 3964 across three tests. The AMD part sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs in the database, one point above the Quadro’s 24th percentile. Interestingly, the AMD part’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4190M at 4505 (0.1% ahead), the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (1.3% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (1.5% ahead). The Quadro K2000, meanwhile, is clustered with the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957 (0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956 (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (0.3% behind). The data suggests the AMD part punches slightly higher in the overall ranking, though both remain in the lower quartile of the database.

The Vulkan result is particularly striking because it reverses the OpenCL outcome by a factor of roughly three. A 26.2% lead in one API and an 8.9% deficit in another implies the two architectures respond very differently to workload characteristics. The OpenCL test favors the Quadro’s Kepler design, while the Vulkan test clearly rewards the GCN 3.0 architecture in the R7 M260. Neither GPU dominates outright; the choice between them depends heavily on which API or application type matters more.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 takes the OpenCL compute test, and that is its clear strength. With a score of 4071 versus 3708, it delivers an 8.9% advantage in a benchmark that often reflects general-purpose GPU compute. The Quadro’s 32 texture mapping units and 16 render output units, combined with a 128-bit memory bus, appear to help in bandwidth-sensitive OpenCL tasks. The data shows the Quadro also carries a higher texture rate at 30.53 GTexel/s compared to the AMD part’s 23.52 GTexel/s, and a higher pixel rate at 7.632 GPixel/s versus 7.840 GPixel/s for AMD, though the AMD number is actually slightly higher in pixel rate.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 wins decisively in Vulkan, posting 5289 against 4191. That 26.2% margin suggests the GCN 3.0 architecture has better driver overhead characteristics or hardware scheduling for Vulkan’s explicit, low-level API model. The AMD part also has a higher FP32 throughput at 752.6 GFLOPS versus the Quadro’s 732.7 GFLOPS, and it supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which the Quadro does not report at all. For workloads that leverage Vulkan or half-precision math, the AMD part is the stronger pick. For legacy OpenCL compute or anything that relies on the Quadro’s higher texture throughput and wider memory bus, the NVIDIA card holds the edge.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families entirely. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip based on GCN 3.0, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip based on Kepler, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, for a density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. AMD’s design is denser, fitting roughly 22% more transistors into a slightly larger area.

Both GPUs feature 384 shading units, but the similarities end there. The AMD part has 24 texture mapping units and 8 render output units, while the NVIDIA part has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. That gives the Quadro a 33% advantage in TMU count and a 100% advantage in ROP count. The memory systems diverge even more sharply. The R7 M260 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s, which is over 4.4 times the bandwidth. That memory bandwidth gap likely explains the Quadro’s OpenCL advantage despite its lower raw FP32 throughput.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD part has a base clock of 940 MHz and a boost clock of 980 MHz, while the NVIDIA part does not report base or boost clocks in the database. The AMD memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while the Quadro’s memory runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The NVIDIA card has a slightly newer Vulkan version but an older DirectX feature level.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 averages 4499 across its tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 averages 3964. The AMD part also sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, two points above the Quadro’s 24th percentile.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 5289 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4191. That gives AMD a 26.2% lead in that specific test.

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 delivers 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR5 bus, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 bus. The Quadro’s bandwidth is over 4.4 times higher.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon R7 M260 and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 have 384 shading units. However, the AMD part has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs, while the NVIDIA part has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU supports FP16 computations?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, reporting 752.6 GFLOPS for both. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 does not list any FP16 capability in the database.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260’s Topaz chip contains 1,550 million transistors, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000’s GK107 chip contains 1,270 million. AMD’s chip is also denser at 12.4M transistors per mm² versus 10.8M for NVIDIA.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with a Topaz chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses Kepler with a GK107 chip. AMD packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while NVIDIA fits 1,270 million on 118 mm². The AMD part has a base clock of 940 MHz and a boost of 980 MHz; the NVIDIA part reports no base or boost clocks. Memory clocks differ as well: AMD runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while NVIDIA runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is a major split. Both have 2 GB, but AMD uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for 14.40 GB/s, while NVIDIA uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s. The shading unit count is identical at 384, but AMD has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs, while NVIDIA has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are close (7.840 GPixel/s for AMD versus 7.632 GPixel/s for NVIDIA), but texture rates diverge (23.52 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s). FP32 throughput is 752.6 GFLOPS for AMD and 732.7 GFLOPS for NVIDIA, and only AMD lists FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS.

The NVIDIA card draws 51 W, fits in a single slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. It measures 202 mm by 111 mm and offers 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The AMD part lists no TDP, slot width, power connectors, or display outputs in the database. The bus interfaces also differ: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The NVIDIA card has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. Both are end-of-life products, with AMD releasing on June 10, 2014, and NVIDIA on February 28, 2013.

The Verdict

The data points to a split decision. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins the OpenCL benchmark by 8.9% and offers vastly superior memory bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, plus double the ROP count and a higher texture rate. Those specifications make it the more capable part for bandwidth-heavy compute tasks and any workload that benefits from higher fill rates. Its 202 mm length, single-slot design, and 51 W TDP also make it a straightforward drop-in for professional workstations.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260, however, wins the Vulkan benchmark by 26.2% and posts a higher average score overall (4499 versus 3964). It also has a denser transistor layout, a higher FP32 throughput, and FP16 support that the Quadro lacks. For any application that leans on Vulkan or half-precision math, the AMD part is the better choice despite its narrow memory bus and lower bandwidth.

The overall percentile ranking favors AMD slightly (26th versus 24th), and the AMD part’s nearest rivals all score higher than the Quadro’s nearest rivals. Users who prioritize modern API performance, especially Vulkan, should choose the AMD Radeon R7 M260. Users who need OpenCL compute throughput, higher texture and pixel rates, or the professional display outputs of the Quadro should pick the NVIDIA Quadro K2000. The database shows two GPUs with complementary strengths, and the correct pick depends entirely on the intended workload.