AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 and AMD Radeon R5 M240 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware from different eras. The data shows a clear, though modest, performance advantage for the older workstation card, but the comparison is defined by more than just raw benchmark scores. This analysis breaks down the specifications and benchmark results to provide a methodical look at where each card stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole benchmark data point for both cards is a Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scored 7289 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scored 6975 points. This gives the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 a 4.5% lead over its rival.

While 4.5% is not a massive gap, it is still a definitive win. To put this score into perspective, we can look at the nearest rivals for each card. The Quadro 5000's performance is incredibly tight with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, which has an average score of 7222 and is only 0.9% behind. It also sits just 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile and 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE. This suggests that the Quadro 5000 is performing right at the expected level for its class, firmly in the mid-range tier.

The Radeon R5 M240's score of 6975 places it in a similar competitive bracket. It is a mere 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M but trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M by 0.7% and the NVIDIA T600 by 0.8%. The fact that it is 2.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100 shows it is competitive within its own ecosystem as well.

Looking at the head-to-head delta, the Quadro 5000's win is decisive but not overwhelming. The 4.5% delta is larger than any of the margins separating either card from its own nearest rivals, which indicates that while both cards are in the same performance neighborhood, the Quadro 5000 holds a consistent, measurable edge. The benchmark results show a single win for the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 and zero for the AMD Radeon R5 M240.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is the outright winner in the only test performed. Its 7289 score eclipses the Radeon R5 M240's 6975 score, meaning it would be the preferred choice in any compute workload that relies on OpenCL performance. The data shows it is 4.5% faster, which, while not a generational leap, is a tangible advantage.

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 does not have a single benchmark win to its name. However, its position relative to its own nearest rivals suggests it is not a weak performer. It manages to beat the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and the AMD FirePro M5100, showing that it can hold its own against similar hardware. The data does not indicate any specific workload where the R5 M240 would be the better choice over the Quadro 5000 in terms of raw compute.

The wins are therefore one-sided. The Quadro 5000 wins the only head-to-head test. The Radeon R5 M240's value proposition does not come from out-performing the Quadro 5000, but rather from being a competitive option within its own performance class, as evidenced by its closeness to the GTX 680M and T600.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains their performance characteristics. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is based on the Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip. This is a massive chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9M / mm².

In contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip. This is a much smaller and more modern design, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It houses only 690 million transistors on a tiny 56 mm² die. This gives it a much higher transistor density of 12.3M / mm², showcasing the efficiency gains of the newer manufacturing process.

The memory subsystems are also starkly different. The Quadro 5000 features 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 120.0 GB/s. The R5 M240, on the other hand, has just 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a much lower bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. This is a major architectural difference; the Quadro 5000 has nearly ten times the memory bandwidth.

Compute resources also differ. The Quadro 5000 packs 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 40 raster operation units (ROPs). The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. While the shading unit count is similar, the Quadro has more than double the TMUs and five times the ROPs. This is reflected in the fill rates: the Quadro 5000 delivers 11.29 GPixel/s and 22.57 GTexel/s, while the R5 M240 manages 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds show the R5 M240's newer architecture. It has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz. The Quadro 5000's core clocks are not listed, but its memory runs at 750 MHz (or 3 Gbps effective), while the R5 M240's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The FP32 performance is close, with the Quadro at 722.3 GFLOPS and the R5 M240 at 659.2 GFLOPS. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for a buyer. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is the superior performer in the only benchmark measured. Its 4.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with its overwhelming advantages in memory bandwidth (120.0 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s) and fill rates (11.29 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s), makes it the logical choice for any task that leverages these capabilities. Its higher pixel and texture rates suggest it would handle graphics-intensive workloads with more ease, and the massive memory bus is a significant asset for data-heavy compute tasks.

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 is a more modern part, but the data does not show it overcoming the Quadro 5000's raw hardware advantages. Its higher boost clock of 1030 MHz and support for newer API features like Vulkan 1.2.170 are points in its favor, but they do not translate into a benchmark win here. It is better suited for a scenario where its smaller size, lower power footprint (though TDP is not listed), and newer feature set are more important than raw compute performance.

Who should pick which? Users who need the maximum OpenCL compute performance and have no constraints on power or size should choose the NVIDIA Quadro 5000. It is the faster card. Users who require a more modern feature set, such as Vulkan support, or who are working within the constraints of a smaller system where a dual-slot, 248 mm long card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and 450 W suggested PSU is not suitable, would look to the Radeon R5 M240. The decision comes down to whether raw performance or modern features and efficiency are the priority.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has a higher score of 7289, compared to the AMD Radeon R5 M240's 6975.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 than the AMD Radeon R5 M240 in the head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is 4.5% faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types for each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory.

Q: Which card has a larger memory bus width and higher bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 has a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the process nodes for the two architectures?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 (Fermi) is built on a 40 nm process, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (GCN 1.0) is built on a 28 nm process.

Q: Which GPU supports the Vulkan API?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000's Vulkan support is listed as null.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 | AMD Radeon R5 M240 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | GF100 | Jet |

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2.5 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 120.0 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 352 | 320 |

| TMUs | 44 | 20 |

| ROPs | 40 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.29 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.57 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 722.3 GFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| Memory Clock | 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.170 |

| TDP | 152 W | N/A |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | N/A |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | N/A |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | N/A |

| Dimensions | 248 mm (9.8 inches) | N/A |

| Release Date | 2011-02-22 | 2014-09-17 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | N/A |