AMD Radeon 880M vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 880M and NVIDIA Quadro P5000 represent two fundamentally different approaches to graphics processing, separated by eight years of architectural evolution and targeting entirely different market segments. The data shows a clear split: the Quadro P5000, a professional workstation card from 2016, dominates traditional rasterization and compute workloads, winning 8 of 10 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Radeon 880M, a 2024 integrated processor, secures decisive victories in Vulkan and 2D tests. The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story, with the 880M averaging 8436 against the P5000's 8039, yet the individual test results reveal the P5000's superior peak performance in most gaming and compute scenarios.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear but complex picture. The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is the definitive choice for traditional workstation graphics, professional 3D rendering, and compute-heavy tasks. It leads the Radeon 880M by 59.8% in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, by 40.4% in Geekbench OpenCL, and by 39.7% in Passmark G3D. For professionals using DirectX-based applications, the P5000's 2560 shading units and 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 performance deliver consistently higher frame rates and faster compute results. The card's 16 GB of GDDR5X memory with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth provides substantial headroom for large datasets.

The AMD Radeon 880M, however, is not without its champions. Its Vulkan performance is extraordinary, scoring 40006 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the P5000's 6342, a 530.8% advantage. This indicates the modern RDNA 3.5 architecture, with its 12 dedicated ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, is exceptionally well-optimized for Vulkan workloads. The 880M also wins Passmark G2D by 43.8%, suggesting superior 2D desktop and interface rendering. For users running Vulkan-based games or applications, or those prioritizing 2D responsiveness, the 880M is the data-supported choice.

The decision ultimately hinges on workload. The P5000 is the safer bet for legacy DirectX applications, professional rendering, and compute. The 880M is the forward-looking option for Vulkan enthusiasts and those who value its 4 nm efficiency, consuming just 15 W compared to the P5000's 180 W. The percentile rankings are close, with the 880M at 43rd percentile and the P5000 at 41st, but the P5000's higher peak scores in most tests make it the more versatile performer for demanding graphics work.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs could not be more different in their underlying design. The AMD Radeon 880M is built on the Strix Point chip using the RDNA 3.5 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process. This modern node packs 34,000 million transistors into a 233 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 145.9M per mm². The chip operates with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. Its memory subsystem is entirely system-shared, meaning bandwidth is system-dependent, a design choice that trades dedicated memory for flexibility and lower power.

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 uses the GP104 chip with the older Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process. This older node houses just 7,200 million transistors on a larger 314 mm² die, resulting in a much lower transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The P5000 clocks significantly higher at 1607 MHz base and 1733 MHz boost, with memory running at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective). It features 16 GB of dedicated GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth.

Compute resources differ dramatically. The 880M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the P5000 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This explains the P5000's raw throughput advantages: its pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s and texture rate of 277.3 GTexel/s dwarf the 880M's 46.40 GPixel/s and 139.2 GTexel/s. The 880M counters with 12 ray tracing cores, a feature the Pascal-based P5000 lacks entirely. FP32 performance strongly favors the P5000 at 8.873 TFLOPS versus 4.454 TFLOPS, while FP16 is a complete reversal: the 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the P5000 manages only 138.6 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio.

API support shows the generational gap. The 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the P5000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) with Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The P5000's interface is PCIe 3.0 x16, while the 880M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The P5000 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, requires a 450 W power supply, and uses a single 8-pin connector, whereas the 880M is an IGP with no power connectors and a 15 W TDP.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is stark and data-driven. The Quadro P5000 wins in every DirectX benchmark: DirectX 10 by 59.7%, DirectX 11 by 28.4%, DirectX 12 by 27.3%, and DirectX 9 by 42.9%. It also dominates compute and general 3D performance, winning Passmark GPU Compute by 42.9% and Passmark G3D by 39.7%. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1330 versus 535 confirms the P5000's superiority in modern DX12 gaming workloads. This makes the P5000 the clear choice for professional 3D modeling, CAD, video editing, and any DirectX-based gaming or rendering scenario.

The Radeon 880M's wins are concentrated but significant. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 40006 is not just a win; it is a categorical demolition, outperforming the P5000 by 530.8%. This suggests the RDNA 3.5 architecture's Vulkan driver implementation is exceptionally efficient, likely benefiting from the modern hardware design and 12 ray tracing cores. The 880M also wins Passmark G2D with a score of 969 versus 674, a 43.8% advantage, indicating superior 2D rendering, desktop compositing, and UI responsiveness. For users running Vulkan-native games, Linux environments with Vulkan drivers, or 2D-focused productivity applications, the 880M is the data-backed winner.

The average scores complicate the picture. The 880M's average of 8436 is 4.9% higher than the P5000's 8039, driven largely by the massive Vulkan outlier. Yet the P5000's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 880M with a 0% delta, while the 880M's closest competitor is the GTX 675MX with a 0.1% delta. This suggests the P5000 sits in a more competitive performance tier relative to its peers, while the 880M's average is inflated by its exceptional Vulkan showing.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in DirectX 12 gaming?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test with a score of 1330 versus the Radeon 880M's 535, a 59.8% advantage. In Passmark DirectX 12, the P5000 also leads with 44 points versus 32, a 27.3% difference.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 880M have any significant advantage?

A: Yes. The 880M wins Geekbench Vulkan by 530.8% (40006 versus 6342) and Passmark G2D by 43.8% (969 versus 674). It also features 12 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which the P5000 lacks entirely.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of dedicated GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 880M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its memory performance varies based on the host system.

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro P5000 delivers 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the 880M's 4.454 TFLOPS. It also wins Passmark GPU Compute by 42.9% (6508 versus 3719) and Geekbench OpenCL by 40.4% (52509 versus 31285).

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Radeon 880M has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors, making it suitable for compact systems. The Quadro P5000 has a 180 W TDP, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and needs a 450 W power supply.

Q: Are these cards comparable in overall benchmark averages?

A: The Radeon 880M averages 8436 across all benchmarks, while the Quadro P5000 averages 8039. However, this is heavily influenced by the 880M's exceptional Vulkan score; the P5000 wins the majority of individual tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test provides the clearest measure of modern gaming performance. The Quadro P5000 scores 1330, while the Radeon 880M manages just 535, a delta of -59.8%. This is the P5000's largest victory in a modern API test and underscores its raw rendering power advantage. The 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs of the P5000 clearly outperform the 880M's 768 shading units and 16 ROPs in this demanding DX12 workload.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar pattern but with different magnitudes. The P5000 scores 52509 against the 880M's 31285, a 40.4% advantage. This compute-oriented test benefits from the P5000's higher FP32 throughput and dedicated 16 GB GDDR5X memory, which avoids the system-shared memory bottleneck of the 880M. The P5000's 8.873 TFLOPS versus 4.454 TFLOPS is the fundamental driver of this result.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is the 880M's crowning achievement. With a score of 40006 versus the P5000's 6342, the 880M wins by an extraordinary 530.8%. This result is almost certainly tied to the RDNA 3.5 architecture's modern Vulkan implementation and its 12 ray tracing cores, which the Pascal-based P5000 cannot match. The P5000's Vulkan score is so low relative to its OpenCL result that it suggests poor driver optimization for this API on the older architecture.

Passmark results paint a comprehensive picture of legacy and general performance. The P5000 wins DirectX 9 by 42.9% (170 versus 97), DirectX 10 by 59.7% (77 versus 31), DirectX 11 by 28.4% (102 versus 73), and DirectX 12 by 27.3% (44 versus 32). These consistent wins across all DirectX versions demonstrate the P5000's robust driver maturity and hardware capability. The 880M, despite being newer, cannot match the P5000's raw throughput in these tests.

The Passmark G3D test, which aggregates overall 3D performance, shows the P5000 winning 12634 to 7615, a 39.7% difference. Passmark GPU Compute follows suit with the P5000 at 6508 versus 3719, a 42.9% advantage. These results align with the compute-focused benchmarks and reinforce the P5000's dominance in general-purpose GPU workloads.

The 880M's Passmark G2D victory is notable: 969 versus 674, a 43.8% win. This 2D-focused test measures desktop rendering, text display, and basic GUI performance, where the 880M's modern architecture and efficient memory handling give it a clear edge. For users who spend most of their time in 2D applications, this advantage translates to snappier interface response and smoother window management.

In total, the P5000 wins 8 benchmarks while the 880M wins 2. However, the magnitude of the 880M's Vulkan victory (530.8%) is so large that it significantly impacts the average score comparison. The data ultimately shows the P5000 as the more consistent and broadly capable performer, with the 880M carving out specific niches where its modern architecture excels.