AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 4 month(s) later
• Around 2% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 51 Watt
• Around 42% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5767 vs 4071
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.211 vs 1.093
• Around 58% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 23.777 vs 15.009
• Around 92% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 73.506 vs 38.219
• Around 49% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2426 vs 1631
• Around 49% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2426 vs 1631

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000

• Around 31% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 730 MHz
• Around 63% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 18.72 GTexel / s
• Around 22% better floating-point performance: 732.7 gflops vs 599.0 gflops
• 2.2x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• Around 73% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1580 vs 915
• Around 27% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 384 vs 302
• Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.332 vs 12.111
• Around 5% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 265.424 vs 253.178
• Around 49% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 vs 1645
• Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1974 vs 1677
• Around 49% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 vs 1645
• Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1974 vs 1677

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	915 1580
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	302 384
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	5767 4071
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	12.111 14.332
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	253.178 265.424
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.211 1.093
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	23.777 15.009
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	73.506 38.219
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1645 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2426 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1677 1974
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1645 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2426 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1677 1974

Compare specifications (specs)