AMD Radeon HD 8850M vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 8850M and NVIDIA Quadro 5000 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by two years of technological evolution. The benchmark data shows the AMD part holds a slim but definitive lead in the single available compute test, scoring 7447 against the Quadro’s 7289 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 2.2% advantage. This narrow margin is notable given the stark differences in their underlying designs, and it raises questions about how architectural choices from different eras translate into real-world performance. The following analysis explores what these numbers mean, how the hardware differs, and where each card fits based strictly on the available data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a clear, if modest, result. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M posts a score of 7447, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 trails with 7289. The delta is 2.2%, making the AMD card the winner in this single benchmark. In absolute terms, this is a tight race; a 158-point gap on a multi-thousand-point scale suggests these two GPUs are operating in a similar performance tier for this workload.

However, context from their nearest rivals makes the picture more nuanced. The HD 8850M’s score places it just 0.1% above the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441) and 0.3% above the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425). It also sits 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472) and 1.4% below the Intel Arc A310 (7550). This clustering indicates the HD 8850M is squarely in a mid-range bracket where tiny score differences separate many products. The Quadro 5000, meanwhile, sits 0.9% above the GeForce GTX 750 (7222), 1.2% above the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203), 1.6% above the GTX 560 SE (7171), and 1.7% above the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170). Its position is similar — competitive but not dominant.

The data suggests that despite being an older, workstation-oriented card, the Quadro 5000 is not left behind by the newer mobile GPU. The 2.2% delta in favor of AMD is real but within a range that could be influenced by driver optimizations or specific workload characteristics. What is more striking is that the HD 8850M, with its mobile pedigree and newer architecture, cannot decisively outrun a Fermi-era professional card. This implies that raw architecture age does not automatically translate into a large performance gap in this particular compute test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, which is 2.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 5000’s 7289.

Q: How does the HD 8850M compare to its closest rivals?

A: It is 0.1% faster than the Intel UHD Graphics 750, 0.3% faster than the AMD Radeon R7 350, 0.3% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, and 1.4% slower than the Intel Arc A310.

Q: Where does the Quadro 5000 sit relative to its nearest competitors?

A: The Quadro 5000 is 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 750, 1.2% ahead of the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, 1.6% ahead of the GTX 560 SE, and 1.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The HD 8850M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 leads in pixel rate at 11.29 GPixel/s, compared to the AMD Radeon HD 8850M’s 10.00 GPixel/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No, the HD 8850M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M uses the Venus chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip based on the older Fermi architecture, produced on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This chip is massive by comparison, with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, but its density is just 5.9M per mm². The process node difference alone — 28 nm versus 40 nm — explains a large part of the efficiency and density gap.

The compute resources tell a story of divergent priorities. The HD 8850M boasts 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 5000 counters with only 352 shading units but 44 TMUs and 40 ROPs. This means AMD’s card has nearly twice as many shader processors, while NVIDIA’s card has more than double the ROP count. In practical terms, the HD 8850M is designed for higher shader throughput, while the Quadro 5000 emphasizes pixel processing and memory bandwidth. The FP32 performance reflects this: the HD 8850M delivers 800.0 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 5000 delivers 722.3 GFLOPS.

Memory is another clear differentiator. The HD 8850M uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), producing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 5000 uses a much wider 320-bit bus with 2.5 GB of GDDR5 at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), delivering 120.0 GB/s — nearly double the bandwidth. This makes the Quadro far better suited to large, bandwidth-hungry workloads, even if its raw compute is lower.

The feature sets also reflect their intended markets. The HD 8850M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support listed. The Quadro also carries a 152 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a suggested 450 W power supply. The HD 8850M’s TDP is not listed, but as a mobile part, it is likely far lower. The Quadro is a full-length 248 mm card with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, while the HD 8850M’s outputs are unspecified.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a narrow victory for the AMD Radeon HD 8850M in compute performance, with a 2.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. Yet the broader picture suggests these are not direct competitors in the traditional sense. The HD 8850M is a mobile GPU from 2013, built for efficiency and modern API support, while the Quadro 5000 is a 2011 workstation card designed for professional graphics with enormous memory bandwidth and pixel throughput.

For a user prioritizing raw compute in a portable form factor, the HD 8850M is the better choice based on the score. It also offers Vulkan support and a newer DirectX feature level. However, the Quadro 5000’s 120.0 GB/s bandwidth and 40 ROPs indicate it would likely excel in memory-bound or pixel-heavy tasks, even though the data does not include a direct benchmark for those. The Quadro also carries a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, reflecting its professional positioning, whereas the HD 8850M has no listed launch price.

The data does not support calling either card a clear winner. It shows a 2.2% compute advantage for AMD, but the specifications suggest NVIDIA’s card has strengths that the single benchmark does not capture. The verdict is context-dependent: for compute and modern API support, the HD 8850M wins; for bandwidth and pixel processing, the Quadro 5000 has the hardware advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon HD 8850M | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 2.5 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 120.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 640 | 352 |

| TMUs | 40 | 44 |

| ROPs | 16 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.00 GPixel/s | 11.29 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 25.00 GTexel/s | 22.57 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 800.0 GFLOPS | 722.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 152 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | Not listed |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 248 mm (9.8 inches) length |

| Release Date | 2013-03-31 | 2011-02-22 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 8850M wins in the compute domain. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 7447 is 2.2% higher than the Quadro 5000’s 7289, and its FP32 output of 800.0 GFLOPS exceeds the Quadro’s 722.3 GFLOPS. It also has a clear advantage in shader count, with 640 units versus 352, and a higher texture rate of 25.00 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s. For workloads that rely heavily on shader math or modern API features like Vulkan, the HD 8850M is the stronger candidate. Its 28 nm process and higher transistor density also suggest better efficiency per watt, although TDP figures are not available to confirm this.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins in memory and pixel throughput. It offers 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus the HD 8850M’s 64.00 GB/s, a doubling that would benefit large texture fetches or frame buffer operations. Its 40 ROPs are 2.5 times the HD 8850M’s 16, and its pixel rate of 11.29 GPixel/s outpaces the AMD card’s 10.00 GPixel/s. The wider 320-bit bus and larger 2.5 GB frame buffer also give it more headroom for high-resolution rendering or multi-display setups. The Quadro’s 44 TMUs edge out the HD 8850M’s 40, further supporting texture-heavy tasks.

In practical terms, the HD 8850M suits general compute, shader-heavy effects, and modern API compatibility. The Quadro 5000 suits bandwidth-sensitive professional workloads, higher pixel fill rates, and configurations needing multiple display outputs. The data does not include a multi-test breakdown, so these conclusions are drawn from the specification sheet and the single benchmark result.