AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

Launched in February 2011 as an end-of-life professional workstation part, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 represents the Fermi generation on a 40 nm process. The AMD Radeon 760M, released in January 2024 and still active, is a Phoenix-based integrated graphics processor on RDNA 3.0 architecture built at 4 nm. The database records only one shared benchmark between them: Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD part scores 20255 against the Quadro’s 7289, a 64% deficit for the older card. Beyond that single result, the two GPUs differ so fundamentally in age, target platform, and feature set that any comparison must weigh raw compute against ecosystem relevance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M averages 6019 across all recorded tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 averages 7289 from its single Geekbench OpenCL result. However, the Radeon’s average includes ten different workloads, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, Vulkan, and compute tests, so the numbers are not directly comparable.

Q: How does the Radeon 760M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Radeon 760M sits within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049 average score, 0.5% higher) and within 0.3% of both the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000). It also trails the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server by only 0.4% (5996 versus 6019).

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the Quadro 5000?

A: The Quadro 5000’s closest match is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 with an average score of 7222, just 0.9% lower. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203, 1.2% lower), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171, 1.6% lower), and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170, 1.7% lower) follow closely behind.

Q: Does the Radeon 760M support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Radeon 760M includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro 5000, which has no RT cores listed. The Radeon also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support recorded.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Radeon 760M has 512 shading units, compared to 352 on the Quadro 5000. However, the Quadro has more texture mapping units (44 versus 32) and more render output units (40 versus 16).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro 5000 uses 2.5 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 760M relies on system shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent".

Architecture Differences

The Quadro 5000 is built on Fermi, NVIDIA’s 2011 architecture, using the GF100 chip fabricated by TSMC at 40 nm. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The chip is a discrete dual-slot card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested power supply. Its memory subsystem is dedicated: 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus delivering 120.0 GB/s. It has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The pixel rate is 11.29 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 22.57 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is listed at 722.3 GFLOPS, with no FP16 figure recorded. The card uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and outputs 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort. Its power draw is 152 W.

The Radeon 760M is a radically different part: an integrated GPU (IGP) on the Phoenix chip, built on RDNA 3.0 at 4 nm, also by TSMC. It contains 25,390 million transistors but on a much smaller 178 mm² die, yielding a density of 142.6 million per square millimeter, over 24 times higher than the Quadro. The GPU has no dedicated memory; it uses system shared memory, meaning all memory parameters are dependent on the host system. It has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. Base clock is 800 MHz with a boost of 2599 MHz. Pixel rate is 41.58 GPixel/s, texture rate is 83.17 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute reaches 5.323 TFLOPS. FP16 is also 5.323 TFLOPS, a 1:1 ratio with FP32. The chip integrates into a motherboard with PCIe 4.0 x8, uses no power connectors, and has a TDP of just 15 W. Display outputs are motherboard dependent.

The architectural gap is enormous: Fermi lacks hardware ray tracing, tensor cores, and modern API support. The Radeon 760M, by contrast, is a current-generation design with 8 RT cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro supports OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12 (11_0) only. The process node difference (40 nm versus 4 nm) explains the density and efficiency chasm, with the Radeon drawing 15 W versus the Quadro’s 152 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one common test between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 20255, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7289. That is a 64% lead for the Radeon, meaning the Quadro delivers roughly one-third of the Radeon’s OpenCL throughput. This result aligns with the raw compute specifications: the Radeon’s FP32 output of 5.323 TFLOPS is over seven times the Quadro’s 722.3 GFLOPS.

In the context of their respective closest rivals, the Quadro’s single score of 7289 places it just 0.9% above the GeForce GTX 750 (7222), 1.2% above the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203), and 1.6% above the GTX 560 SE (7171). The Radeon 760M’s broader benchmark suite shows a different picture: its average of 6019 across ten tests places it within 0.3% of the RX 6400 and GTX 770M, and 0.5% below the Quadro P2000. The Radeon’s individual scores vary widely by workload: it reaches 30336 in Geekbench Vulkan, 5310 in Passmark G3D, and 2840 in Passmark GPU Compute, but drops to 19 in Passmark DirectX 10 and 25 in DirectX 12. The Quadro has no recorded results in any of these tests, so the Radeon’s superiority in OpenCL cannot be extrapolated to all scenarios without caution.

The 64% delta in Geekbench OpenCL is the single largest margin recorded between the two, and it favors the newer part overwhelmingly. Yet the Quadro’s percentile ranking of 40 versus the Radeon’s 35 suggests that, across all GPUs in the database, the Quadro actually sits higher in relative performance distribution, likely because the Radeon’s low scores in older DirectX tests drag its overall standing down.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Radeon 760M is the clear winner in raw compute and modern feature support. Its 20255 OpenCL score dwarfs the Quadro’s 7289, its FP32 throughput is an order of magnitude higher, and it adds ray tracing, Vulkan, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support that the Quadro lacks entirely. The Quadro 5000, despite being end-of-life since release, still holds a higher percentile rank (40 versus 35) and a higher average benchmark score (7289 versus 6019), but those numbers come from a single test, not a suite.

For any builder choosing between a discrete Fermi-era workstation card and a modern integrated RDNA 3 GPU, the data points decisively to the Radeon. It consumes 15 W versus 152 W, requires no power connector, and fits into any motherboard with PCIe 4.0 x8, whereas the Quadro needs a dual-slot bracket, a 6-pin cable, and a 450 W PSU. The Quadro’s only practical advantages are its dedicated 2.5 GB GDDR5 memory (the Radeon depends on system RAM) and its 40 ROPs versus 16, which could benefit certain fill-rate-bound workloads. But the Radeon’s pixel rate is still much higher (41.58 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s), so even that advantage does not hold up in measured throughput.

The Quadro 5000 should only be chosen for legacy software that requires Fermi-era driver behavior or the specific DVI output configuration. The Radeon 760M is the better part for virtually every modern workload, from compute to gaming to API compatibility.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 40 nm (Quadro) versus 4 nm (Radeon). Transistor count: 3,100 million versus 25,390 million. Die size: 529 mm² versus 178 mm². Transistor density: 5.9M per mm² versus 142.6M per mm². Shading units: 352 versus 512. TMUs: 44 versus 32. ROPs: 40 versus 16. RT cores: none versus 8. FP32: 722.3 GFLOPS versus 5.323 TFLOPS. FP16: not listed versus 5.323 TFLOPS. Pixel rate: 11.29 GPixel/s versus 41.58 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 22.57 GTexel/s versus 83.17 GTexel/s. TDP: 152 W versus 15 W. Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus none. Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Memory: 2.5 GB GDDR5 on 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s versus system shared. Display outputs: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort versus motherboard dependent. DirectX: 12 (11_0) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan: not listed versus 1.4. OpenGL is identical at 4.6. Release date: February 2011 versus January 2024. Production status: end-of-life versus active. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the Radeon has no listed launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M wins in compute-heavy tasks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 64% higher, its FP32 output is seven times greater, and its FP16 throughput matches FP32, making it suitable for AI inference and mixed-precision workloads. It wins on modern API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 open doors to current games and applications that the Quadro cannot run with full features. It wins on power efficiency by a massive margin: 15 W versus 152 W means less heat, no external power cable, and compatibility with thin laptops or compact desktops. It wins on texture and pixel fill rates, with 83.17 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s and 41.58 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s. It wins on ray tracing, a feature the Quadro lacks entirely.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins in a narrow set of scenarios. Its dedicated 2.5 GB GDDR5 frame buffer, with a fixed 320-bit bus and 120.0 GB/s bandwidth, provides predictable memory performance that does not depend on system RAM speed or capacity. Its 40 ROPs, while slower in pixel rate terms, may still handle certain legacy rasterization patterns more gracefully than the Radeon’s 16 ROPs, though the measured pixel rate contradicts that. It wins on bus bandwidth if the system has an older PCIe 2.0 slot, and its dual-slot cooler with 1x DVI output suits professional environments with legacy displays. It also holds a higher percentile rank (40 versus 35) in the database, suggesting that across all GPUs, its single strong OpenCL result places it above the Radeon in relative standing, despite the Radeon’s superior absolute score in that same test. Ultimately, the Quadro’s wins are about compatibility and niche legacy use, not performance.