AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M265 and NVIDIA Quadro K2100M are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from the same 28 nm era that ended up in very different machines: one a mainstream laptop graphics part, the other a professional workstation MXM module. The recorded data shows a narrow but consistent edge for the Radeon in compute benchmarks, while the Quadro counters with stronger memory bandwidth, more shading hardware, and a professional feature pedigree. Neither card is competitive by modern standards, sitting in the 29th and 25th percentiles respectively against all GPUs in the database, but the head-to-head comparison is closer than those percentile positions might suggest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison in the database is limited to one overlapping test, Geekbench OpenCL, and it goes to AMD. The Radeon R7 M265 scored 4929 against the Quadro K2100M's 4587, a 7.5 percent advantage for the Radeon. That is a meaningful gap in a matchup where both parts occupy the same general performance tier, and it is the single decisive result recorded between them.

Context matters here. The Radeon's OpenCL score of 4929 is also its average benchmark score, and it lands the card in the 29th percentile of all GPUs measured. The Quadro's broader record includes two additional tests: a Geekbench Metal score of 3524 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4343. Its average across all recorded benchmarks is 4151, placing it in the 25th percentile. So while AMD wins the only shared test, the Quadro's fuller results show where it is weaker outside OpenCL, particularly in Metal, where its 3524 result sits well below its own OpenCL and Vulkan numbers.

The rival clustering tells a consistent story. The Radeon R7 M265's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M360 at an average score of 4931, a dead-even 0 percent delta, the AMD FirePro W5130M at 4904 (0.5 percent behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901 (0.6 percent behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 at 4893 (0.7 percent behind). The Quadro K2100M's neighborhood includes the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4170 (-0.4 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at 4193 (-1 percent), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4093 (1.4 percent), and the Intel HD Graphics 630 at 4075 (1.9 percent). In short, the Radeon sits roughly 800 points higher on average score, which tracks with its percentile lead of four points.

The database records one win for the Radeon and zero for the Quadro across shared tests, so the benchmark verdict is straightforward: AMD wins the measured head-to-head, and the only nuance is that the margin is moderate rather than decisive.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R7 M265 wins where OpenCL compute throughput is the priority. Its 7.5 percent Geekbench OpenCL lead, backed by a higher average benchmark score and a higher percentile placement, makes it the better pick of the two for general-purpose GPU compute workloads as measured in the database. If the workload is compute-first and the software runs on OpenCL, the recorded data favors the Radeon.

The Quadro K2100M wins, or at least argues for itself, on memory subsystem and rasterization hardware. Its GDDR5 memory delivers 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth against the Radeon's 28.80 GB/s on DDR3, a substantial advantage in any workload that streams textures or large datasets through the 128-bit bus both cards share. It also posts higher theoretical rates across the board: 8.004 GPixel/s pixel fill versus 6.600 GPixel/s, 32.02 GTexel/s texture fill versus 19.80 GTexel/s, and 768.4 GFLOPS FP32 versus 633.6 GFLOPS. On paper, then, the Quadro has more raw shading and fill-rate capability, while the Radeon converts its design into better measured compute results. That divergence between theoretical throughput and measured score is the central tension in this comparison, and buyers should weight the measured benchmarks more heavily than paper specs.

The Quadro also belongs to NVIDIA's professional line, which historically matters for certified workstation applications, and its Vulkan API support runs slightly newer at version 1.2.175 versus the Radeon's 1.2.170, with DirectX 12 (11_0) on the Quadro against DirectX 12 (11_1) on the Radeon, the latter being the higher feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, which is where most of the similarities end. The Radeon R7 M265 uses the Opal chip on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Gem System (R7 M200) generation, released on 2014-01-08. It packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm², and runs a base clock of 725 MHz with a boost clock of 825 MHz. Its memory is 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective, producing that 28.80 GB/s figure.

The Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S chip on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, released earlier on 2013-07-22. It is a much larger design: 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, with slightly lower density at 11.5M per mm². Its clock is fixed at 667 MHz for both base and boost, notably lower than the Radeon's clocks, which partially explains why its hardware advantage does not fully translate into benchmark wins. Memory is 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus width, clocked at 752 MHz and 3 Gbps effective, delivering 48.13 GB/s.

The shader counts favor the Quadro: 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, against the Radeon's 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, as expected for this era. The Radeon connects over PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses an MXM-A (3.0) module interface with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Radeon's record lists no TDP or physical slot data. Lineage also differs: the Radeon succeeded the Solar System line and was followed by Polaris Mobile, while the Quadro followed Quadro Fermi-M and was succeeded by Quadro Maxwell-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in benchmarks?

A: The Radeon R7 M265. It won the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, 4929 to 4587, a 7.5 percent margin, and holds a higher average score (4929 versus 4151) and percentile (29 versus 25).

Q: Does the Quadro have better memory?

A: Yes. Its GDDR5 delivers 48.13 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s for the Radeon's DDR3, both on a 128-bit bus, which is a clear bandwidth advantage for the Quadro.

Q: Which card has more processing hardware?

A: The Quadro K2100M, with 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, against 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs on the Radeon. It also leads in FP32 at 768.4 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The Radeon shipped from 2014-01-08 and the Quadro from 2013-07-22.

Q: How do they compare on API support?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, with the Radeon at feature level 11_1 versus the Quadro's 11_0. Vulkan is nearly identical: 1.2.170 on the Radeon and 1.2.175 on the Quadro.

Q: What power does the Quadro need?

A: The Quadro K2100M is a 55 W MXM module with no power connectors. The database records no TDP figure for the Radeon R7 M265.

Specification Differences

• Chip: Opal (Radeon) vs GK106S (Quadro)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Kepler
• Generation: Gem System (R7 M200) vs Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)
• Release date: 2014-01-08 vs 2013-07-22
• Transistors: 950 million vs 2,540 million
• Die size: 77 mm² vs 221 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.3M/mm² vs 11.5M/mm²
• Clocks: 725 MHz base, 825 MHz boost vs 667 MHz base and boost
• Memory type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs 48.13 GB/s
• Shading units: 384 vs 576
• TMUs: 24 vs 48
• ROPs: 8 vs 16
• Pixel rate: 6.600 GPixel/s vs 8.004 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 19.80 GTexel/s vs 32.02 GTexel/s
• FP32: 633.6 GFLOPS vs 768.4 GFLOPS
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs MXM-A (3.0)
• TDP: not recorded vs 55 W
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs 1.2.175
• Predecessor: Solar System vs Quadro Fermi-M
• Successor: Polaris Mobile vs Quadro Maxwell-M

Shared specs include the 28 nm TSMC node, 2 GB memory size, 128-bit bus, OpenGL 4.6, end-of-life status, and the absence of RT and tensor cores.

The Verdict

For a buyer choosing strictly on measured performance, the Radeon R7 M265 is the pick. It won the only shared benchmark by 7.5 percent, carries the higher average score, and sits four percentile points higher in the database, while drawing its 4929-class results from a much smaller 77 mm² die.

The Quadro K2100M earns its place in different scenarios. Its GDDR5 memory bandwidth advantage, higher fill rates, and larger shader allocation suit workloads that lean on memory throughput and rasterization rather than the compute path the benchmarks capture, and its professional Quadro lineage and MXM module format target workstation laptops specifically. Its fixed 667 MHz clock and much larger die explain why that hardware lead does not convert into benchmark wins.

Both are end-of-life parts in the bottom quartile of all GPUs measured, so neither is a candidate for a modern build. As a like-for-like comparison, the data says: Radeon for measured compute, Quadro for bandwidth-heavy and professional use.