AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only one directly comparable benchmark between these two GPUs, but that single result is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 scores 52,509 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6,975 points. The delta between them is 652.8%, making the Quadro P5000 roughly seven and a half times faster in this compute-oriented workload. This is not a marginal gap; it is a generational chasm that reflects the fundamental positioning of each part.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro P5000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 8,039, while the Radeon R5 M240's average is 6,975. That places the Quadro P5000 at the 41st percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the Radeon R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile. Interestingly, the percentile gap is far narrower than the OpenCL delta would suggest, which indicates that the Radeon's single recorded score is competitive with the average of the Quadro's full benchmark suite, but the Quadro's individual strengths in OpenCL are exceptional.

The nearest rivals for the Quadro P5000 help contextualize its average score. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M sits at an average of 8,040, a delta of 0% from the Quadro. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti is at 8,053, which is 0.2% higher, and the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is at 8,067, 0.3% higher. The NVIDIA GRID K2 trails slightly at 8,080, 0.5% higher. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning the Quadro P5000's average performance is essentially indistinguishable from this cluster of older and mid-range NVIDIA parts, despite its far superior OpenCL showing.

For the Radeon R5 M240, the nearest rivals paint a similar picture of tight clustering. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M averages 6,946, which is 0.4% lower than the Radeon, meaning the Radeon is slightly ahead. The GeForce GTX 680M averages 7,023, which is 0.7% higher. The NVIDIA T600 averages 7,035, 0.8% higher, and the AMD FirePro M5100 averages 6,830, 2.1% lower. The Radeon R5 M240 is thus competitive with a specific band of discrete mobile GPUs from roughly the same era, but it has no answer to the Quadro P5000's compute throughput.

The wins tally in the head-to-head is 1 for the Quadro P5000 and 0 for the Radeon R5 M240. While only one benchmark is shared, the scale of the victory leaves little room for ambiguity. The Quadro P5000 also has a much richer benchmark record overall, with scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1,330), Geekbench Vulkan (6,342), Passmark DirectX 10 (77), DirectX 11 (102), DirectX 12 (44), DirectX 9 (170), G2D (674), G3D (12,634), and GPU Compute (6,508), in addition to its OpenCL score. The Radeon R5 M240 has only the one OpenCL result, which limits the depth of comparison but does not change the outcome.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is built on the GP104 chip using the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a die size of 314 mm², yielding a transistor density of 22.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R5 M240, by contrast, uses the Jet chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The Quadro P5000 therefore has more than ten times the transistor count and a much higher density, enabled by the smaller process node.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Quadro P5000 has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Radeon R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These are not close; the Quadro has eight times the shading units, eight times the TMUs, and eight times the ROPs. The pixel rate for the Quadro is 110.9 GPixel/s, while the Radeon manages 8.240 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 277.3 GTexel/s for the Quadro versus 20.60 GTexel/s for the Radeon. Floating point performance in FP32 is 8.873 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon. The Quadro also lists FP16 performance at 138.6 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the Radeon has no recorded FP16 figure.

Clock speeds tell a part of the story. The Quadro P5000 runs at a base clock of 1607 MHz and a boost clock of 1733 MHz. The Radeon R5 M240 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. The Quadro's clocks are higher, but the real difference comes from the sheer number of execution units operating at those clocks. Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro's memory runs at 1127 MHz with 9 Gbps effective, while the Radeon's memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

The memory subsystem is another major architectural divider. The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256 bit bus, delivering 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s. That is a 20 fold difference in bandwidth, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and large dataset handling. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support is largely similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12, though the Quadro reaches 12_1 while the Radeon reaches 12 (11_1). OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Vulkan support differs: the Quadro supports 1.4, while the Radeon supports 1.2.170. The Quadro also lists a dual-slot form factor, a 1x 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 450 W, while the Radeon has no recorded slot width, power connector, or PSU recommendation. The Quadro's display outputs are 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a; the Radeon has no recorded display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 wins in every category where data exists. Its OpenCL score of 52,509 versus 6,975 is the headline, but its other benchmark results, while not directly comparable to the Radeon, show a versatile profile. The Quadro scores 12,634 in Passmark G3D, 6,508 in GPU Compute, 1,330 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 6,342 in Geekbench Vulkan, 674 in Passmark G2D, 170 in DirectX 9, 102 in DirectX 11, 77 in DirectX 10, and 44 in DirectX 12. These numbers indicate a GPU that can handle a wide range of workloads, from legacy DirectX 9 titles to modern DX12 and Vulkan applications, as well as general compute tasks.

The Radeon R5 M240 has only its single OpenCL score of 6,975 to its name. In that one test, it is far behind the Quadro. However, its percentile rank of 39 versus the Quadro's 41 suggests that in the broader database, the Radeon is not an outlier at the bottom; it is merely a low-to-mid-range part whose only recorded score happens to be in OpenCL. The nearest rival data shows the Radeon is competitive with the GeForce GTX 675M (0.4% ahead), the GeForce GTX 680M (0.7% behind), the NVIDIA T600 (0.8% behind), and the AMD FirePro M5100 (2.1% ahead). So within its own performance class, the Radeon sits comfortably, but it cannot reach the Quadro's performance tier.

For use cases, the Quadro P5000 is suited to compute-heavy tasks, large frame buffers, and high-resolution rendering, given its 16 GB memory and 288.5 GB/s bandwidth. Its 8.873 TFLOPS FP32 throughput makes it viable for scientific computing, deep learning inference, and content creation workloads that leverage OpenCL. The Radeon R5 M240, with its 1024 MB memory and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, is limited to light tasks: basic display output, older games at low settings, and minimal compute. The data does not support any scenario where the Radeon outperforms the Quadro.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two GPUs differ are extensive. Process node: 16 nm for the Quadro, 28 nm for the Radeon. Transistors: 7,200 million versus 690 million. Die size: 314 mm² versus 56 mm². Transistor density: 22.9M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm². Base clock: 1607 MHz versus 1000 MHz. Boost clock: 1733 MHz versus 1030 MHz. Memory clock: 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Memory size: 16 GB versus 1024 MB. Memory type: GDDR5X versus DDR3. Bus width: 256 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth: 288.5 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. Shading units: 2,560 versus 320. TMUs: 160 versus 20. ROPs: 64 versus 8. Pixel rate: 110.9 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 277.3 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32: 8.873 TFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS. FP16: 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64) for the Quadro, null for the Radeon. TDP: 180 W for the Quadro, null for the Radeon. Slot width: dual-slot for the Quadro, null for the Radeon. Power connectors: 1x 8-pin for the Quadro, null for the Radeon. Suggested PSU: 450 W for the Quadro, null for the Radeon. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs: 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a for the Quadro, null for the Radeon. DirectX: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1). Vulkan: 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Release date: 2016-09-30 for the Quadro versus 2014-09-17 for the Radeon. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD; the Radeon has no recorded launch MSRP.

The fields where they do not differ: both are manufactured by TSMC, both are end-of-life, both support OpenGL 4.6, and neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta; the Radeon's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 scores 52,509 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6,975. The Quadro leads by 652.8%.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the architecture differences?

A: The Quadro P5000 uses the Pascal architecture on a 16 nm process with 7,200 million transistors. The Radeon R5 M240 uses GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm process with 690 million transistors.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare?

A: The Quadro P5000's average score of 8,039 is within 0.5% of the GeForce GTX 880M, GTX 650 Ti, GTX 650 Ti Boost, and GRID K2. The Radeon R5 M240's average of 6,975 is within 2.1% of the GTX 675M, GTX 680M, T600, and FirePro M5100.

Q: What is the release date for each?

A: The Quadro P5000 was released on 2016-09-30. The Radeon R5 M240 was released on 2014-09-17.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is overwhelmingly more powerful than the AMD Radeon R5 M240. In the only shared benchmark, OpenCL, the Quadro is 652.8% ahead. Its architecture is newer, its process node is smaller, its memory subsystem is vastly superior, and its compute resources are an order of magnitude larger. The Quadro's 16 GB frame buffer and 288.5 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for professional visualization, large dataset compute, and high-resolution rendering. The Radeon's 1024 MB frame buffer and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth restrict it to basic tasks and legacy workloads.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision depends entirely on workload. If the task involves OpenCL compute, modern graphics APIs, or large memory footprints, the Quadro P5000 is the only viable option. If the task is extremely light, such as simple 2D output or running very old games, the Radeon R5 M240 could suffice, but the data shows no performance advantage for it in any recorded metric. The Quadro's percentile rank of 41 versus the Radeon's 39 suggests that even in the broader database, the Quadro sits slightly higher, but the gap in raw compute is far larger than the percentile difference implies.

The Radeon R5 M240 is not a bad GPU relative to its own peers; it is within 2.1% of several comparable mobile parts. But relative to the Quadro P5000, it is in a different class entirely. The Quadro's nearest rivals, all within 0.5% of its average score, are mid-range NVIDIA parts, which shows that the Quadro's average performance is modest for its class, but its peak compute in OpenCL is exceptional. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro P5000 wins decisively, and any user with compute or graphics demands should select it over the Radeon R5 M240.