AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 has a higher average benchmark score of 6975, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M's 6481. Interestingly, the Quadro's individual OpenCL score of 22920 far exceeds the Radeon's 6975, but the Quadro's average is dragged down by its other benchmark results, such as a Passmark G3D score of 7062 and a Passmark DirectX 9 score of 119.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is at the 37th percentile. Despite the Quadro having a much higher raw compute ceiling, both cards land in the lower-middle tier of the overall GPU landscape, with the Radeon holding a marginal percentile edge.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU?

A: The Radeon R5 M240's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (avg score 6946, 0.4% difference), while the Quadro M5000M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (avg score 6476, 0.1% difference). The Radeon also trades blows with the GTX 680M (7023) and T600 (7035), while the Quadro sits near the GT 555M (6493) and GTX 670M (6513).

Q: Which GPU supports the newer DirectX version?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the Quadro has a more feature-complete DirectX 12 implementation, which can matter for modern game titles and advanced rendering features.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Radeon R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s — over 11 times the bandwidth. This is a massive difference in both capacity and speed.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 was released in September 2014, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M followed in August 2015. Both have since been discontinued, with the Radeon's predecessor being Solar System and the Quadro's predecessor being Quadro Kepler-M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two mobile GPUs is stark. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with the small "Jet" chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M, meanwhile, uses Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but scales dramatically larger: 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, with a density of 13.1M per mm².

The compute resources diverg sharply. The Radeon fields 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. The Quadro counters with 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs — 4.8x, 4.8x, and 8x the respective counts. Clock speeds are similar, with the Radeon boosting to 1030 MHz and the Quadro to 1051 MHz, but the sheer difference in parallel hardware makes the performance gap enormous.

Memory architecture is another chasm. The Radeon uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the Quadro uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The effective memory speed differs as well: 1800 Mbps for the Radeon versus 5 Gbps for the Quadro. The PCIe interface also differs — the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), reflecting its mobile workstation orientation.

API support shows the Quadro's newer feature set. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Radeon supports Vulkan 1.2.170 while the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4. DirectX support also differs: the Radeon is capped at DirectX 12 (11_1), whereas the Quadro reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). The Quadro is rated at 100 W TDP and uses an MXM Module form factor, while the Radeon has no listed TDP or slot width.

The Verdict

The benchmark data tells a clear story of two different performance tiers. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins the sole head-to-head benchmark — Geekbench OpenCL — with a score of 22920 versus the Radeon's 6975, a 69.6% delta. That is not a marginal victory; it is a dominant one.

However, the average benchmark scores present a paradox. The Radeon R5 M240 averages 6975, while the Quadro averages only 6481, despite the Quadro's individual OpenCL score being over three times higher. This is because the Quadro has nine benchmark entries, including several low Passmark scores (DirectX 10 at 35, DirectX 12 at 29, G2D at 476), while the Radeon has only a single benchmark entry. The data suggests the Radeon's average is artificially high due to a lack of diverse testing, while the Quadro's average reflects a broader, more punishing workload set.

For any task that harnesses raw compute power, the Quadro M5000M is the obvious choice. Its FP32 throughput of 3.229 TFLOPS, texture rate of 100.9 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 67.26 GPixel/s dwarf the Radeon's 659.2 GFLOPS, 20.60 GTexel/s, and 8.240 GPixel/s. The Quadro also offers 8 GB of VRAM versus 1 GB, making it suitable for larger datasets and textures.

The Radeon R5 M240's only claim to relevance is its higher percentile rank (39th vs 37th) and its superior average benchmark score, but both are artifacts of limited data. In any real-world comparison, the Quadro M5000M is the superior GPU for professional workloads, while the Radeon is a basic entry-level mobile part.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M240 | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | Jet | GM204 |

| Transistors | 690 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 962 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | 1051 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 20 | 96 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 67.26 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 100.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 3.229 TFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | September 2014 | August 2015 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Pascal-M |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a landslide. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22920, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975. The delta is -69.6% from the Radeon's perspective, meaning the Quadro is roughly 3.3 times faster. This is consistent with the raw specification differences: the Quadro has 4.8x the shading units, 4.8x the TMUs, 8x the ROPs, and 11.1x the memory bandwidth.

Looking at the Quadro's broader benchmark suite, it shows a mixed profile. Its Passmark G3D score is 7062, which is actually higher than the Radeon's single OpenCL score of 6975. But the Quadro's Passmark DirectX scores are surprisingly low: 35 for DirectX 10, 54 for DirectX 11, 29 for DirectX 12, and 119 for DirectX 9. The G2D score is 476, and the GPU compute score is 2756.

The Radeon's single benchmark score of 6975 places it just above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946) by 0.4% and just below the GTX 680M (7023) by -0.7%. The Quadro's average score of 6481 puts it in a tight cluster with the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6476) and NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6493). The Quadro's individual OpenCL score, however, is far above any of its nearest rivals, suggesting that its average is heavily penalized by the low Passmark DirectX entries.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins decisively in compute-intensive and professional workloads. Its OpenCL score of 22920 is over three times the Radeon's 6975, and its FP32 throughput of 3.229 TFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS means any task relying on raw floating-point math — rendering, simulation, scientific computation — will favor the Quadro overwhelmingly. The 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth also makes it the clear choice for large texture sets, high-resolution workloads, or any scenario requiring substantial memory capacity.

The Quadro also wins on API modernity. Its Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level are ahead of the Radeon's Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). For developers or users running newer graphics APIs, the Quadro is the safer bet. Its 100 W TDP and MXM Module form factor indicate it is designed for mobile workstations where sustained performance matters.

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison. Its only advantages are its higher percentile rank (39th vs 37th) and its higher average benchmark score (6975 vs 6481), but both are misleading due to the Quadro's more extensive benchmark coverage. The Radeon's lower power footprint (no TDP listed, suggesting a very low draw) and smaller die (56 mm² vs 398 mm²) could make it more suitable for ultra-thin, low-power notebooks, but the data provides no performance scenario where it wins.

For legacy DirectX 9 workloads, the Quadro's Passmark score of 119 is its highest DirectX result, but still low in absolute terms. The Radeon's single benchmark does not cover DirectX at all, leaving no direct comparison. In summary, the Quadro M5000M wins every meaningful performance category, while the Radeon R5 M240's only claim is being a lighter, simpler part for basic mobile use.