AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 10 month(s) later
• Around 17% higher core clock speed: 730 MHz vs 625 MHz
• Around 67% higher pipelines: 320 vs 192
• Around 4% better floating-point performance: 499.2 gflops vs 480.0 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 24% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 62 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 27% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4936 vs 3879
• Around 33% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.569 vs 10.229
• Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.009 vs 0.885
• Around 44% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.668 vs 13.688
• 4.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 77.819 vs 19.02

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 2000

• Around 28% higher texture fill rate: 20 GTexel / s vs 15.6 GTexel / s
• Around 44% higher memory clock speed: 2600 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• Around 73% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 947 vs 548
• Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 303 vs 194
• Around 59% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 258.26 vs 162.886
• Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1600 vs 1119
• Around 31% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1682 vs 1284
• Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2668 vs 2264
• Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1600 vs 1119
• Around 31% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1682 vs 1284
• Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2668 vs 2264

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 2000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	548 947
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	194 303
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4936 3879
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	13.569 10.229
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	162.886 258.26
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.009 0.885
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	19.668 13.688
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	77.819 19.02
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1119 1600
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1284 1682
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2264 2668
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1119 1600
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1284 1682
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2264 2668

Compare specifications (specs)