Radeon R5 430 OEM vs Quadro K2000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000M with Radeon R5 430 OEM, including specs and performance data.

K2000M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 55 Watt
2.62

R5 430 OEM outperforms K2000M by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking817809
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.37no data
Power efficiency3.273.66
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGK107Oland
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)30 June 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$265.27 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores384384
Core clock speed745 MHz730 MHz
Boost clock speedno data780 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate23.8418.72
Floating-point processing power0.5722 TFLOPS0.599 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3224

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x8
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s36.8 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

K2000M 2.62
R5 430 OEM 2.67
+1.9%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

K2000M 1010
R5 430 OEM 1031
+2.1%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD23
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p11.53no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how K2000M and R5 430 OEM compete in popular games:

  • K2000M is 10% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.62 2.67
Recency 1 June 2012 30 June 2016
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 50 Watt

R5 430 OEM has a 1.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and 10% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K2000M and Radeon R5 430 OEM.

Be aware that Quadro K2000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R5 430 OEM is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
Quadro K2000M
AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM
Radeon R5 430 OEM

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 34 votes

Rate Quadro K2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 367 votes

Rate Radeon R5 430 OEM on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.