AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between the AMD Radeon R7 M260 and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this single recorded measurement, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708 points. This gives the Quadro K2000D a 5.4% advantage, a margin that is meaningful but not overwhelming.

Looking at the broader database context, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 holds an average benchmark score of 4499 across all recorded tests, which places it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, by contrast, has an average score of 3919 and sits in the 23rd percentile. This means that while the Quadro wins the single head-to-head OpenCL test, the R7 M260 actually has a higher overall average score when additional benchmarks are considered. The discrepancy arises because the R7 M260 also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289, a test the Quadro K2000D does not appear in, which lifts its average.

The nearest rivals for the AMD Radeon R7 M260 illustrate its positioning. The AMD FirePro W4190M averages 4505, a negligible 0.1% ahead. The Intel HD Graphics P530 averages 4560, putting it 1.3% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 560 averages 4569, 1.5% ahead, and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 averages 4577, 1.7% ahead. These are all very tight margins, indicating that the R7 M260 sits in a crowded performance band where small differences separate one product from another.

For the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, the nearest rivals are similarly close. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D averages 3930, which is 0.3% ahead of the K2000D. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 averages 3898, placing it 0.5% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M averages 3953, 0.9% ahead, and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics averages 3883, 0.9% behind. The K2000D's position among these rivals suggests it is firmly anchored in the lower-mid range of professional and consumer GPUs from its era.

The recorded data shows that the Quadro K2000D leads in the one test where both are present, but the R7 M260's Vulkan result suggests it has capabilities that extend beyond what the OpenCL comparison alone captures. The 5.4% delta in OpenCL is the only direct numerical comparison, and it favors NVIDIA.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages and different market segments. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, part of the Gem System generation under the R7 M200 family. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip based on Kepler architecture, from the Quadro Kepler Kx000 generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical, but the underlying designs diverge considerably.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ. The AMD chip packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, with a density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The AMD design is therefore denser and slightly larger in physical area.

Shading unit counts are equal at 384 for both GPUs, but the rest of the compute pipeline differs. The R7 M260 has 24 texture mapping units and 8 raster output units. The Quadro K2000D has 32 texture mapping units and 16 raster output units. This gives the NVIDIA part a clear advantage in texture fillrate and pixel throughput capacity. The texture rate for the R7 M260 is 23.52 GTexel/s, while the Quadro K2000D achieves 30.53 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are close: 7.840 GPixel/s for AMD versus 7.632 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, a small win for the R7 M260 despite its lower ROPS count.

Memory subsystems are very different. The R7 M260 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with memory clocked at 900 MHz and 1800 Mbps effective. This yields a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro K2000D uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with memory at 1000 MHz and 4 Gbps effective, delivering 64.00 GB/s. That is over four times the memory bandwidth, a decisive difference for any workload that is bandwidth-sensitive.

Floating-point throughput is close. The R7 M260 delivers 752.6 GFLOPS in FP32 and also supports FP16 at the same 752.6 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Quadro K2000D delivers 732.7 GFLOPS in FP32 and has no recorded FP16 capability. The AMD part leads slightly in raw compute peak, while NVIDIA leads heavily in memory bandwidth and texture throughput.

Clock behavior differs as well. The R7 M260 has a base clock of 940 MHz and a boost clock of 980 MHz. The Quadro K2000D has no recorded base or boost clock values, only its memory clock. The R7 M260 runs at a higher core frequency, which helps it reach its slightly higher FP32 figure.

Power and physical specifications are only documented for the Quadro K2000D. It has a TDP of 51 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and carries a suggested PSU rating of 250 W. It measures 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The R7 M260 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, or dimension data in the database.

Interface support also differs. The R7 M260 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro K2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The AMD part is a mobile-oriented chip, while the Quadro is a desktop professional card with display outputs of 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

API support shows a notable split. The R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD part exposes a higher DirectX feature level, while the NVIDIA part has a marginally newer Vulkan version.

The R7 M260 was released on 2014-06-10, while the Quadro K2000D came earlier on 2013-02-28. Both are end-of-life. The AMD predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The NVIDIA predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 5.4%. It also delivers dramatically higher memory bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s compared to 14.40 GB/s, and has more texture units and ROPs. For professional workloads that rely on memory throughput and texture processing, the Quadro K2000D is the stronger option.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 counters with a higher average benchmark score of 4499 versus 3919, driven largely by its Vulkan result of 5289. It also has slightly higher FP32 compute at 752.6 GFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS, supports FP16, and offers DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0 compared to the Quadro's 11_0. For users prioritizing compute throughput and modern API support, the R7 M260 holds advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708. The Quadro wins by 5.4%.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has 64.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different levels. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has an average benchmark score of 4499 across its recorded tests. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has an average score of 3919.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 delivers 752.6 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D delivers 732.7 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the production statuses of these GPUs?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 was released on 2014-06-10, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D was released on 2013-02-28.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is the clear winner in memory-bound scenarios. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is more than four times the R7 M260's 14.40 GB/s, and its 32 texture units versus 24, plus 16 ROPs versus 8, make it better suited for tasks that stress fillrate and memory access patterns. The OpenCL benchmark confirms this, as the Quadro leads by 5.4%. Professional applications that rely on large data transfers, high-resolution textures, or heavy rasterization will favor the Quadro K2000D.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 wins on compute peak and API modernity. Its 752.6 GFLOPS FP32 output edges out the Quadro's 732.7 GFLOPS, and it adds FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio, which the Quadro lacks entirely. The R7 M260 also supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, a higher tier than the Quadro's 11_0. Its Vulkan score of 5289 indicates strong performance in that API, and its overall average score of 4499 is higher than the Quadro's 3919. For compute-oriented workloads, newer API usage, or scenarios where Vulkan performance matters, the R7 M260 is the better choice.

The physical and power profile also favors the Quadro K2000D for workstation integration. It has a documented 51 W TDP, requires no power connectors, fits in a single slot, and has a suggested PSU rating of 250 W. The R7 M260 has no recorded TDP or power requirements, so its integration demands are unknown from the data. The Quadro's 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs give it a clear display connectivity advantage for multi-monitor professional setups.

In summary, the data points to the Quadro K2000D for bandwidth-intensive professional graphics and memory-heavy tasks, while the R7 M260 holds the edge in raw compute throughput, FP16 support, and modern API compatibility. The 5.4% OpenCL lead for the Quadro is the only direct head-to-head result, but the R7 M260's higher average score and Vulkan capability suggest it is the more versatile part overall in the database's recorded metrics.