AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1000M
The Radeon R5 M255 has 62% better performance than the Quadro K1000M for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
We do not have any performance per dollar data for the Radeon R5 M255 and the Quadro K1000M for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Summary
About the AMD Radeon R5 M255 GPU
The Radeon R5 M255 is an end-of-life mobile graphics card by AMD. It launched in Q4 2014. Its Topaz chip that powers the GPU uses the GCN 3.0 architecture and is fabricated on the 28 nm process.
This GPU is paired with 2 GB of DDR3 VRAM. Its 1,000 MHz memory clock and 128 bit interface gives it a bandwidth of 32 Gb/s. This impacts how much data it can store, and how fast it transfers the data to and from memory.
The Radeon R5 M255 has the 377th highest 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 540 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 1.70% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090.
About the NVIDIA Quadro K1000M GPU
The Quadro K1000M is an end-of-life mobile graphics card by NVIDIA. It launched in Q2 2012. Its GK107 chip that powers the GPU uses the Kepler architecture and is fabricated on the 28 nm process.
This GPU is paired with 2 GB of DDR3 VRAM. Its 900 MHz memory clock and 128 bit interface gives it a bandwidth of 28.8 Gb/s. This impacts how much data it can store, and how fast it transfers the data to and from memory.
This mobile card has a TDP of 45 W.
The Quadro K1000M has the 444th highest 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 540 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 1.05% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090.
General Info
General overview of the GPU, including details like its manufacturer, release date, launch price, and current production status.
| Info | Radeon R5 M255 | Quadro K1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | AMD | NVIDIA |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |
| Market Segment | Mobile | Mobile |
| Release Date | Q4 2014 | Q2 2012 |
| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |
| Shop | Check Price | Check Price |
Gaming Performance
Select a game to compare FPS metrics
FPS Benchmarks
This table showcases the average frame rate (FPS) achieved both GPUs in at various resolutions. Frame rate is a crucial indicator of how smoothly the GPU can run the game. A higher FPS generally translates to a smoother gameplay experience.
- Frames Per Second
Sons of the Forest | Radeon R5 M255 | Quadro K1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Low - 1080p | 7 FPS | -- |
| Medium - 1080p | -- | -- |
| High - 1080p | -- | -- |
| Ultra - 1080p | -- | -- |
| QHD - 1440p | -- | -- |
| 4K UHD - 2160p | -- | -- |
Compare Frames Per Second (FPS)
The average frame rate (FPS) in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, higher FPS results in a smoother gameplay experience.
| GPU | Frames Per Second | |
|---|---|---|
| Our database does not have enough FPS data to compare with other GPUs. | ||
Compare Cost Per Frame
The average cost per frame in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. Generally, a lower cost per frame implies better value for your money.
| GPU | Cost Per Frame | |
|---|---|---|
| Our database does not have enough data to compare the FPS per dollar with other GPUs. | ||
Benchmark Performance
The Radeon R5 M255 has 62% better performance than the Quadro K1000M for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Radeon R5 M255 is ranked 377th with a score of 1,784, and the Quadro K1000M is ranked 444th with a score of 1,102.
We do not have any performance per dollar data for the Radeon R5 M255 and the Quadro K1000M for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Relative Performance
The average score in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
| GPU | Benchmark Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 560M | 1,820 | +2% |
| Quadro K2000M | 1,798 | +1% |
| Radeon R5 M335 | 1,784 | 0% |
| Radeon R5 M255 | 1,784 | |
| GeForce 825M | 1,756.5 | -2% |
| GeForce GT 635M | 1,110 | -38% |
| GeForce 710M | 1,106.5 | -38% |
| Quadro K1000M | 1,102 | -38% |
| Radeon HD 6570M | 1,067 | -40% |
| Radeon HD 7670M | 1,061.5 | -40% |
Relative Value For Money
The average performance per dollar in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. A higher score implies a better value for your money.
| GPU | Performance Per Dollar | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Our database does not have enough data to compare the benchmark performance per dollar with other GPUs. | |||
Benchmark Scores
This table showcases the average performance scores achieved by both GPUs across industry-standard benchmark tests. These scores provide a valuable insight into overall performance. Powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
- Popular
| Benchmark | Radeon R5 M255 | Quadro K1000M |
|---|---|---|
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Graphics | 6,053 | -- |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Standard Graphics | 1,080.5 | -- |
| 3DMark 11 Performance Score | 1,907 (+54.79%) | 1,232 |
| Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64 Bit | 34.7 | -- |
| PassMark G3D Mark | 534 | 781 (+46.25%) |
| PassMark G2D Mark | 134 | 248 (+85.07%) |
Technical Specs
Graphics Processor
General information about the graphics processing unit like their architecture, manufacturing process size, and transistor count. Newer GPU architectures generally bring efficiency improvements and may introduce technologies that enhance graphical capabilities.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | Quadro K1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Codename | Topaz | GK107 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |
| Process Size | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Transistors | 1,550 million | 1,270 million |
Memory Details
Memory specifications like their capacity, bandwidth, and clock speeds. GPU memory stores graphics data like frames, textures, and shadows which helps display rendered images. These specs are crucial for graphics-intense applications like gaming and 3D modeling.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | Quadro K1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Memory Size | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 32 Gb/s | 28.8 Gb/s |
| Memory Clock | 1,000 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory Interface | 128 bit | 128 bit |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Board Compatibility
Compatibility information like their slot size, bus interface, power consumption, and display support. These specs are useful for verifying compatibility with your motherboard, power supply, and monitor.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | Quadro K1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | -- | 45 W |
| Outputs | Device Dependent | Device Dependent |
Cores & Clock Speeds
Processing power information like its cores and clock speed. These specs impact how fast they can process graphics. Each type of core or component serves a specific computational purpose.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | Quadro K1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Stream Processors (SP) | 384 | -- |
| CUDA Cores | -- | 192 |
| Compute Units (CU) | 6 | -- |
| Stream Multiprocessors (SM) | -- | 1 |
| Texture Mapping Units (TMU) | 24 | 16 |
| Render Output Units (ROP) | 8 | 16 |
| Core Clock Speed | 925 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Core Clock Speed (Boost) | 940 MHz | -- |
Theoretical Performance
Theoretical performance numbers derived from the raw specifications of the different components like core count and clock speeds. While these provide a glimpse into peak processing power, they do not represent real-world performance.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | Quadro K1000M |
|---|---|---|
| Pixel Fill Rate | 7.52 GPixel/s | 3.4 GPixel/s |
| Texture Fill Rate | 22.56 GTexel/s | 13.6 GTexel/s |
| FP32 Performance | 721.9 GFLOPS | 326.4 GFLOPS |
| FP64 Performance | 45.12 GFLOPS | 13.6 GFLOPS |
API Support
Graphics API versions supported by these graphics cards. APIs evolve over time, introducing new features and functionalities. Older GPUs may not support recent versions.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | Quadro K1000M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 (5.1) |
Check out these comparisons for similar GPUs:
Looking for alternatives? Check out these similar GPUs:
* Performance rating, performance per dollar, and rankings are based on the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark and MSRP.