AMD Radeon R7 M445 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125, while the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5,358. That is a delta of 275.6% in favor of the Quadro P2000. In practical terms, the Quadro P2000 delivers more than three and a half times the OpenCL compute throughput of the R7 M445.

The broader benchmark suite reinforces this gap, though the R7 M445 has no additional recorded entries to compare directly. The Quadro P2000's average benchmark score is 6,049 across all tests, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The R7 M445's average score is 5,358, placing it at the 31st percentile. While the percentile difference is only four points, the raw score separation is meaningful, and the OpenCL result shows where the architectural gulf is widest.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card puts the numbers in context. The Quadro P2000 sits within a tight cluster: the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 averages 6,077 (0.5% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A400 averages 6,078 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon 760M averages 6,019 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 averages 6,001 (0.8% lower). The Quadro P2000 is therefore right in the middle of a group of modern entry-level and integrated parts, with no single rival more than a percentage point away.

The R7 M445 sits in a lower tier. Its closest neighbor is the Intel UHD Graphics P630 at 5,370 (0.2% higher), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce 840M at 5,322 (0.7% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce 930A at 5,317 (0.8% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M at 5,308 (0.9% lower). The R7 M445 is essentially on par with these older or low-power parts, but it is nowhere near the Quadro P2000's performance class.

The head-to-head record is 1 win for the Quadro P2000 and 0 for the R7 M445. There is no benchmark in the database where the R7 M445 takes a lead.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different process nodes and design philosophies. The Quadro P2000 is built on TSMC's 16 nm process, packing 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The R7 M445 is on TSMC's 28 nm node, with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, for a density of 12.4M per mm². The Quadro P2000 uses roughly 2.8 times the transistor count on a die that is only 1.6 times larger, which explains much of its advantage in raw throughput.

The Quadro P2000 is based on the Pascal architecture, specifically the GP106 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Pascal generation. The R7 M445 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, from the Gem System generation. These are fundamentally different designs: Pascal is a streamlined, efficiency-focused architecture from 2017, while GCN 3.0 is a broader, older design from 2016.

Compute resources differ substantially. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The R7 M445 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 3.2x advantage in shading units, a 3.2x advantage in TMUs, and a 5x advantage in ROPs for the Quadro P2000. The pixel rate reflects this: 59.20 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 7.360 GPixel/s for the R7 M445. Texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.031 TFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS, a gap of over five times.

Clock speeds also favor the Quadro P2000. Its base is 1076 MHz with a boost of 1480 MHz, while the R7 M445 runs at 780 MHz base and 920 MHz boost. The memory subsystem is another major differentiator. The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M445 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 32.00 GB/s. That is a 4.4x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro P2000. The effective memory clock is 7 Gbps versus 4 Gbps.

FP16 performance is an interesting inversion. The Quadro P2000 delivers 47.36 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio to FP32, indicating it does not treat half-precision as a first-class citizen. The R7 M445 delivers 588.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it can match its FP32 rate in FP16. This suggests the R7 M445 is more flexible in workloads that use half-precision, but its absolute FP16 output is still far below the Quadro P2000's FP32 peak.

The Quadro P2000 supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R7 M445 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro P2000 is a single-slot card with no external power connectors and a 75 W TDP, with a suggested power supply of 250 W. The R7 M445 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no recorded TDP or power supply requirement. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro P2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R7 M445's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its laptop-oriented design.

API support is similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12, but the Quadro P2000 is at feature level 12_1 while the R7 M445 is at 12_0. OpenGL 4.6 is present on both. Vulkan support is 1.4 for the Quadro and 1.2.170 for the R7 M445.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins in every measured compute scenario. In OpenCL, it is 275.6% ahead. In pixel throughput, texture throughput, and memory bandwidth, it is multiple times faster. For any workload that stresses the GPU's parallel execution units, the ROPs, or the memory bus, the Quadro P2000 is the clear choice.

The R7 M445's only relative advantage is in FP16 throughput relative to its own FP32 rate. At a 1:1 ratio, it can process half-precision data at its full FP32 speed, which is unusual. The Quadro P2000, by contrast, drops to a 1:64 ratio for FP16, meaning it is heavily optimized for FP32 and ignores half-precision. However, this does not translate to a practical win for the R7 M445, because its absolute FP32 and FP16 numbers are both far lower than the Quadro P2000's FP32 peak.

For use cases, the Quadro P2000 is suited to professional visualization, CAD, and compute workloads where the 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 rate, 140.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs matter. The R7 M445, with its 32.00 GB/s bandwidth and 588.8 GFLOPS, is more of a basic mobile graphics solution. It can handle light 2D acceleration and older or less demanding 3D tasks, but it lacks the headroom for serious compute or high-resolution rendering.

The database shows the Quadro P2000 at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, which places it in the lower-middle range of the entire GPU landscape. The R7 M445 at the 31st percentile is only slightly below, but the percentile ranking masks the large gap in specific tests. Percentile is based on the average score, and the R7 M445 has only one benchmark entry, which skews its average downward.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 than the AMD Radeon R7 M445 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R7 M445 scores 5,358. That is a 275.6% advantage for the Quadro P2000.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each GPU?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth from 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus. The R7 M445 has 32.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, compared to 320 on the R7 M445. It also has 64 TMUs versus 20, and 40 ROPs versus 8.

Q: Does the R7 M445 support half-precision better than the Quadro P2000?

A: Yes, in relative terms. The R7 M445 achieves 588.8 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio to its FP32 rate. The Quadro P2000 achieves 47.36 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:64 ratio. However, the Quadro's FP32 peak of 3.031 TFLOPS is over five times the R7 M445's FP32 peak.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Quadro P2000, on a 16 nm process, has a density of 22.0M transistors per mm² with 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The R7 M445, on a 28 nm process, has 12.4M per mm² with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare for each GPU?

A: The Quadro P2000's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6400, which is 0.8% higher in average score. The R7 M445's closest rival is the Intel UHD Graphics P630, which is 0.2% higher. The Quadro P2000 sits in a cluster of GPUs averaging around 6,000, while the R7 M445 sits in a cluster around 5,300.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 outperforms the AMD Radeon R7 M445 in every recorded benchmark and across every architectural metric that matters for GPU compute. The 275.6% lead in OpenCL is the headline number, but the supporting data shows consistent dominance in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, clock speed, memory bus width, memory bandwidth, and FP32 throughput.

The Quadro P2000 is a discrete, single-slot card with a 75 W TDP, designed for professional workstations. It has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory, 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and supports PCIe 3.0 x16. It is best suited for users who need reliable, driver-certified performance in professional applications, or for anyone whose workload benefits from over 3 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

The R7 M445 is an integrated mobile GPU from 2016. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, 320 shading units, and a 588.8 GFLOPS FP32 rate. Its only notable feature is full-rate FP16, but that is a niche advantage in a field where its absolute performance is far behind. For general-purpose graphics or compute, it is not in the same class.

The nearest-rival data confirms that the Quadro P2000 is a mid-pack performer among modern GPUs, sitting within 0.8% of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and the NVIDIA RTX A400. The R7 M445, meanwhile, trades blows with the Intel UHD Graphics P630 and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, all of which are older or low-power parts.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the workload. If the task requires professional-grade compute, multiple display outputs, or high memory bandwidth, the Quadro P2000 is the only viable option between these two. If the system is a laptop with an integrated GPU and the workload is light, the R7 M445 may be acceptable, but it cannot match the Quadro P2000 in any meaningful way. The recorded data shows one winner, and it is the NVIDIA Quadro P2000.