AMD Radeon RX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D: a comparison that pits a Polaris-era consumer card against a Kepler-era professional workstation card. The data in the database shows a significant generational and architectural gap, with the RX 560 dominating in raw compute metrics while the K2000D holds its ground in the context of its intended professional niche. The sole direct head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, illustrates this divide clearly: the RX 560 scores 16472 points against the K2000D’s 3919 points, a 320.3% advantage for the AMD card. This is not a close contest on paper, and the recorded specifications reinforce that conclusion across nearly every measurable category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon RX 560. The RX 560 produces an OpenCL score of 16472, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D manages 3919. This translates to a 320.3% delta in favor of the RX 560, meaning the AMD card delivers over four times the compute performance in this particular test. The margin is so large that it underscores the fundamental differences in their compute architectures and release timelines.

Beyond the OpenCL result, the database provides no overlapping DirectX or compute benchmarks between the two cards. The RX 560 has a full suite of Passmark results, including DirectX 9 (57), DirectX 10 (16), DirectX 11 (25), DirectX 12 (21), G2D (485), G3D (3671), and GPU compute (1437). The K2000D lacks these entries entirely in the recorded data, so no direct comparison can be made for those specific workloads. The absence of data is itself informative: the K2000D was not subjected to the same modern benchmark suite, which aligns with its older Kepler architecture and professional positioning.

The average benchmark scores also tell the story. The RX 560 posts an average score of 4569, placing it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The K2000D’s average score is 3919, good for the 23rd percentile. While both cards sit in the lower quartile of the overall GPU landscape, the RX 560 is still ahead by 650 points in its average, a 16.6% gap. The nearest rivals for the RX 560 include the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, 0.2% behind), the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, 0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, 1.1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, 1.3% behind). The K2000D’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930, 0.3% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898, 0.5% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.9% behind), and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, 0.9% ahead). These neighbor comparisons confirm that both cards are entry-level performers in the modern database, but the RX 560 sits at the top of its cluster while the K2000D sits near the bottom of its own.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 560 wins in every category where data exists for both cards. Its 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines give it a massive throughput advantage over the K2000D’s 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The pixel rate of the RX 560 is 20.40 GPixel/s versus the K2000D’s 7.632 GPixel/s, a 2.67x advantage in fill-rate bound scenarios. Texture rate is similarly lopsided: 81.60 GTexel/s for the RX 560 versus 30.53 GTexel/s for the K2000D, a 2.67x gap. Floating point performance, measured as FP32, is 2.611 TFLOPS for the RX 560 versus 732.7 GFLOPS for the K2000D, a 3.56x difference in raw compute throughput.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D does not win any recorded benchmark. Its only score, Geekbench OpenCL at 3919, is far below the RX 560’s 16472. Where the K2000D might be considered superior is in operational characteristics rather than performance. It is a single-slot card with a 51 W TDP, while the RX 560 is a dual-slot card with a 75 W TDP. Both require no auxiliary power connectors and both are rated for a 250 W suggested power supply. The K2000D is also shorter in height at 111 mm (4.4 inches) compared to the RX 560’s unspecified height, though the RX 560 is shorter in length at 170 mm (6.7 inches) versus the K2000D’s 202 mm (8 inches). For a workstation environment prioritizing density and low power draw, the K2000D’s single-slot, 51 W profile is a practical advantage, but it comes at the cost of compute capability.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The AMD Radeon RX 560 is built on the Polaris 21 chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip with Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, a density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The RX 560 packs more than twice the transistors into a similar die area thanks to the smaller process node.

Memory configurations also differ significantly. The RX 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2000D has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 64.00 GB/s due to a lower memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the RX 560’s 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The RX 560’s memory capacity is double, and its bandwidth is 75% higher.

Feature support follows the expected generational pattern. The RX 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 560 also has a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the K2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs reflect their target markets: the RX 560 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K2000D offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The RX 560 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 2.611 TFLOPS, whereas the K2000D has no recorded FP16 capability.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 560 in the only shared benchmark?

A: The RX 560 scores 16472 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Quadro K2000D’s 3919, a 320.3% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 560 has 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the K2000D has 64.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has a 51 W TDP, while the AMD Radeon RX 560 has a 75 W TDP. Both cards require no auxiliary power connectors and both list a 250 W suggested power supply.

Q: Do both cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: The RX 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each card?

A: The RX 560 has an average benchmark score of 4569, placing it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs. The K2000D has an average score of 3919, placing it in the 23rd percentile.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RX 560 has 1024 shading units, while the K2000D has 384. The RX 560 also has 64 TMUs versus the K2000D’s 32, while both have 16 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 560 is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark and across every relevant compute metric. Its 320.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, its 3.56x advantage in FP32 throughput, and its 75% higher memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for any workload that depends on raw graphics or compute performance. The RX 560 also offers double the memory capacity, a newer architecture, and a more advanced feature set, including newer DirectX and Vulkan versions. Its 14 nm process and GCN 4.0 design represent a generational leap over the K2000D’s 28 nm Kepler parts.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, however, has a distinct profile that may matter in specific deployment scenarios. Its single-slot design and 51 W TDP make it a candidate for dense workstation builds where space and thermal headroom are constrained. It also provides dual DVI outputs, which could be relevant for legacy display setups. But these are niche advantages. In terms of performance, the K2000D is closer to the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, 0.9% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.9% behind) than it is to the RX 560. The RX 560, meanwhile, sits in a neighborhood with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, 1.3% behind) and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, 1.1% behind), both of which are far above the K2000D’s performance class.

For a buyer choosing between these two today, the RX 560 is the only rational pick if performance matters. The K2000D’s launch MSRP was 599 USD, while the RX 560’s launch MSRP was 99 USD. That price difference, recorded in the database, reinforces the performance gap rather than compensating for it. The K2000D was a professional card aimed at a different market, but the recorded data shows it has been thoroughly outpaced by a much younger, much cheaper consumer part. The verdict is straightforward: choose the RX 560 for any compute or graphics workload, and only consider the K2000D if a single-slot, low-power form factor with dual DVI outputs is an absolute requirement.