AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits these two GPUs cleanly by era and workload. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins 6 of 9 head-to-head tests, including every DirectX benchmark and the decisive Passmark G3D test, where it scores 7062 against the AMD Radeon 760M’s 5310 — a 33% advantage. That makes the Quadro the pick for legacy DirectX workloads and raw 3D rasterization. The AMD Radeon 760M, despite losing the overall head-to-head, wins the Vulkan test by 18%, the 2D test by 46.5%, and edges out the Quadro in GPU compute by 3%. It also carries modern features like 8 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which the Quadro lacks entirely. The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the Quadro averages 6481 with a 37th percentile ranking, while the Radeon 760M averages 6019 with a 35th percentile ranking. The Quadro’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6476 (0.1% delta), while the Radeon 760M sits within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and 0.3% of the AMD Radeon RX 6400. For users prioritizing older DirectX titles or maximum 3D throughput, the Quadro M5000M is the data-backed choice. For users needing Vulkan performance, 2D responsiveness, or modern API support, the Radeon 760M is the clear winner.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by nearly a decade of process technology. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The AMD Radeon 760M uses the Phoenix chip based on RDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 25,390 million transistors in a much smaller 178 mm² die, achieving a dramatically higher transistor density of 142.6 million per mm². That density difference is the architectural story: the Radeon 760M crams nearly five times more transistors per square millimeter into less than half the die area.

The memory subsystems diverge completely. The Quadro M5000M carries 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 760M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth — no dedicated VRAM at all. Clock behavior also differs: the Quadro runs at a 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost, while the Radeon 760M starts at 800 MHz base but boosts to 2599 MHz. The compute configurations are starkly different in count but not in outcome. The Quadro has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs; the Radeon 760M has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but adds 8 ray tracing cores. Despite fewer units, the Radeon 760M achieves higher raw FP32 throughput at 5.323 TFLOPS versus the Quadro’s 3.229 TFLOPS, and it also supports FP16 at 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1), which the Quadro does not list. Pixel rates favor the Quadro at 67.26 GPixel/s versus 41.58 GPixel/s, but texture rates are closer: 100.9 GTexel/s versus 83.17 GTexel/s.

API support shows the generational gap. The Radeon 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Power envelopes are worlds apart: the Quadro is a 100 W MXM module, while the Radeon 760M is a 15 W IGP. The Quadro is end-of-life, released in 2015, with the Quadro Kepler-M as predecessor and Quadro Pascal-M as successor. The Radeon 760M is active, released in 2024, succeeding Navi II IGP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the Quadro M5000M comes in the Passmark G3D test, where it scores 7062 against the Radeon 760M’s 5310 — a 33% lead that represents the single largest absolute gap in the entire comparison. That result anchors the Quadro’s case for 3D rendering workloads. The DirectX legacy tests show even larger relative margins, though on smaller absolute numbers. In Passmark DirectX 9, the Quadro scores 119 versus 65, an 83.1% advantage. In Passmark DirectX 10, the Quadro leads 35 to 19, an 84.2% margin. The DirectX 11 test is closer: 54 versus 52, a 3.8% edge for the Quadro. DirectX 12 shows the Quadro ahead 29 to 25, a 16% delta. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 22920 against 20255, a 13.2% win.

The Radeon 760M’s wins are fewer but meaningful. Its largest victory is in Passmark G2D, where it scores 890 versus the Quadro’s 476 — a 46.5% advantage that signals far stronger 2D performance. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Radeon 760M scores 30336 against the Quadro’s 24875, an 18% margin, showing modern API efficiency. The GPU compute test is nearly a tie: the Radeon 760M scores 2840 versus the Quadro’s 2756, a 3% edge. That compute result is notable given the Quadro’s larger shading unit count and dedicated memory bandwidth.

Interpreting these numbers together, the pattern is clear. The Quadro M5000M dominates in tests that stress traditional rasterization pipelines and older DirectX versions, which aligns with its Maxwell 2.0 architecture and high ROP count. The Radeon 760M wins where modern API efficiency, 2D throughput, or compute parallelism matter, reflecting its RDNA 3.0 design and higher boost clock. The Vulkan delta is particularly telling: the Radeon 760M outperforms despite far fewer shading units, suggesting architectural efficiency outweighs raw unit counts in modern workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has an average benchmark score of 6481, while the AMD Radeon 760M averages 6019. The Quadro also holds a higher percentile ranking at 37 versus the Radeon’s 35.

Q: How close are these GPUs to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro M5000M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile with an average score of 6476, a 0.1% delta. The Radeon 760M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6001, a 0.3% delta, with the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 showing a -0.5% delta.

Q: Which GPU wins the most head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins 6 of 9 tests. The AMD Radeon 760M wins 3. The Quadro’s wins include all four Passmark DirectX tests and the Passmark G3D test, while the Radeon 760M wins Passmark G2D, Geekbench Vulkan, and Passmark GPU Compute.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest relative margin is in Passmark DirectX 10, where the Quadro M5000M leads by 84.2% (35 versus 19). The largest absolute gap is in Passmark G3D, where the Quadro leads by 1752 points (7062 versus 5310).

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

A: Yes, the Radeon 760M includes 8 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has no ray tracing cores listed. The Radeon 760M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM module slot. The AMD Radeon 760M has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP. Neither requires power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the choice for legacy DirectX workloads. Its wins in DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests — with margins from 3.8% to 84.2% — make it the safer bet for older applications and games built on those APIs. The 33% lead in Passmark G3D reinforces this, as does the 13.2% edge in Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro’s 64 ROPs and 67.26 GPixel/s pixel rate support heavy rasterization, and its dedicated 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent memory performance that doesn’t depend on system hardware. The 100 W TDP in an MXM form factor suggests it was designed for mobile workstations where sustained 3D throughput matters more than power efficiency.

The AMD Radeon 760M wins in modern and compute-oriented scenarios. Its 46.5% lead in Passmark G2D makes it the better choice for desktop, UI, and 2D rendering tasks. The 18% Vulkan advantage indicates strong performance in modern games and applications that leverage Vulkan’s lower overhead. The 3% GPU compute edge, combined with 5.323 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.323 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1) throughput, positions it for compute workloads that benefit from parallel arithmetic. The 8 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support future-proof it for newer titles, despite its lower overall 3D score. The 15 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency and integration are priorities.

The data does not support a single universal winner. The Quadro M5000M’s 6-3 win count in head-to-head tests and higher average score favor it for raw 3D and legacy compatibility. The Radeon 760M’s architectural advantages — smaller process node, higher boost clock, ray tracing support, and modern API compliance — favor it for efficiency and forward-looking workloads. The 28 nm versus 4 nm process gap, the 100 W versus 15 W TDP, and the dedicated versus shared memory design all point to different target platforms. Users on older software stacks should side with the Quadro; users on modern APIs or compute-heavy tasks should side with the Radeon 760M.