AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 and AMD Radeon R5 M320 are both end-of-life mobile or low-profile desktop parts that land at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, yet their benchmark profiles diverge sharply. The data shows a near-total split: the Radeon R5 M320 dominates OpenCL compute, while the Quadro P400 crushes Vulkan performance, leaving the overall average score nearly identical—4684 for the P400 versus 4657 for the R5 M320, a margin of just 0.6%. This is a tale of two very different architectures targeting opposite workloads, and the benchmark results make that division unmistakable.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available benchmark tests tell a story of specialization rather than overall superiority. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 posts a score of 5051 against the Quadro P400’s 4249. That is a 15.9% advantage for AMD, a substantial lead in raw compute throughput. The R5 M320 achieves this despite having a lower boost clock of 855 MHz compared to the P400’s 1252 MHz, which suggests that its larger shading unit count—320 versus 256—and higher texture mapping unit count—20 versus 16—are doing the heavy lifting in parallel compute tasks. The OpenCL result also aligns with the R5 M320’s higher FP32 rating of 547.2 GFLOPS, though interestingly that figure is actually lower than the P400’s 641.0 GFLOPS. This indicates that OpenCL performance is not purely a function of peak FP32 throughput, and the AMD part’s architecture extracts more real-world compute efficiency from its GCN 1.0 design.

Flip to Geekbench Vulkan, and the tables turn decisively. The Quadro P400 scores 5119, while the Radeon R5 M320 trails at 4262. That is a 20.1% lead for NVIDIA, an even larger margin than AMD’s OpenCL advantage. The P400’s Vulkan result is particularly striking given its lower shading unit count and smaller memory bandwidth of 32.06 GB/s versus the R5 M320’s 16.00 GB/s—wait, that is actually double the bandwidth for NVIDIA, which likely matters in graphics-heavy Vulkan workloads. The P400 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M320 only reaches Vulkan 1.2.170, a version gap that could explain part of the performance delta. The two wins cancel out, leaving the head-to-head at 1-1, but the magnitude of each victory is telling: AMD wins OpenCL by 15.9%, NVIDIA wins Vulkan by 20.1%, so the NVIDIA advantage in its preferred API is slightly larger.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the P400’s 4684 average score sits just 0.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4657, and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628. The R5 M320’s 4657 average is exactly tied with the RX 9060 XT 16 GB, and it trails the P400 by 0.6%. These deltas are tiny—less than 2% across all four comparisons—which underscores how close these two GPUs are in overall compute capability despite their architectural chasms.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 5051 versus the NVIDIA Quadro P400’s 4249, a delta of 15.9%.

Q: Which GPU wins the Vulkan benchmark, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 5119 versus the AMD Radeon R5 M320’s 4262, a delta of 20.1%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro P400 averages 4684, while the Radeon R5 M320 averages 4657. The P400 leads by 0.6%, which is within the margin of error for these tests.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for these GPUs?

A: Both the NVIDIA Quadro P400 and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 sit at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are entry-level parts by modern standards.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 offers 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the AMD Radeon R5 M320’s 16.00 GB/s.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The P400’s GP107 chip packs 25.0 million transistors per mm², while the R5 M320’s Jet chip has 12.3 million per mm²—a 2x density advantage for NVIDIA.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast, starting with the manufacturing process. The Quadro P400 is built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, while the Radeon R5 M320 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. That process node difference explains the transistor density disparity: the P400’s GP107 die is 132 mm² and contains 3,300 million transistors, yielding 25.0M transistors per mm². The R5 M320’s Jet die is just 56 mm² but holds only 690 million transistors, giving it 12.3M per mm². In plain terms, the NVIDIA chip packs nearly five times as many transistors onto a die that is 2.36 times larger, a direct consequence of the more advanced process.

The compute architectures are generations apart. The P400 runs NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, part of the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation, while the R5 M320 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0, from the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. Pascal is a much newer design, and that shows in API support: the P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the R5 M320 maxes out at DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Vulkan version gap is significant—1.4 versus 1.2.170—and likely contributes to the P400’s commanding 20.1% Vulkan win.

Memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The P400 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 32.06 GB/s. The R5 M320 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on the same 64-bit bus, but only achieves 16.00 GB/s. That is a 2x bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA, and the memory type difference—GDDR5 versus DDR3—explains why. The P400 also clocks its memory at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the R5 M320 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Shader configurations differ too: the P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; the R5 M320 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, but only 8 ROPs. The R5 M320’s higher shader count is offset by its halved ROP count, which limits pixel throughput.

Pixel and texture rates tell the performance story. The P400 achieves 20.03 GPixel/s and 20.03 GTexel/s, while the R5 M320 manages just 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s. The P400’s pixel rate is nearly 3x higher, a function of its 16 ROPs versus 8. The R5 M320’s texture rate is closer, at 17.10 versus 20.03 GTexel/s, thanks to its 20 TMUs versus 16. FP32 compute is another area where the P400 leads: 641.0 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS. The P400 also lists FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the R5 M320 has no FP16 data available.

Power and form factor differences are stark. The P400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 30 W TDP, requiring a 200 W suggested PSU. The R5 M320 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no TDP listed, no power connectors, and no dimensions. The P400 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the R5 M320 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs also differ: the P400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R5 M320 is "Portable Device Dependent," meaning its outputs are determined by the laptop it is embedded in.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear split based on workload. For Vulkan-based applications—which includes many modern games and graphics APIs—the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the unambiguous choice, delivering 20.1% higher performance. Its 32.06 GB/s bandwidth, 20.03 GPixel/s pixel rate, and Vulkan 1.4 support make it better suited for graphics-heavy tasks. The P400 also wins on raw compute metrics like FP32 (641.0 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS) and pixel fill rate, despite losing the OpenCL test.

For OpenCL compute workloads, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the winner, posting 15.9% higher scores. Its 320 shading units and 20 TMUs give it an edge in parallel compute that the OpenCL benchmark captures, even though its FP32 rating is lower. The R5 M320 also offers 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, which could matter for large datasets, though its DDR3 memory is half as fast in bandwidth.

The overall average scores are nearly identical—4684 versus 4657, a 0.6% gap—so neither GPU is a clear overall winner. The decision rests entirely on the application mix. If the workload is Vulkan graphics, take the Quadro P400. If it is OpenCL compute, take the Radeon R5 M320. The data shows no middle ground: these are specialized tools, not general-purpose replacements for each other.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The manufacturing process is 14 nm for the P400 versus 28 nm for the R5 M320. Transistor counts are 3,300 million versus 690 million, and die sizes are 132 mm² versus 56 mm². Transistor density is 25.0M/mm² versus 12.3M/mm². Base clocks are 1228 MHz versus 780 MHz, and boost clocks are 1252 MHz versus 855 MHz. Memory size is 2 GB versus 4 GB, memory type is GDDR5 versus DDR3, and memory bandwidth is 32.06 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s. Shading units are 256 versus 320, TMUs are 16 versus 20, and ROPs are 16 versus 8. Pixel rates are 20.03 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s, texture rates are 20.03 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 641.0 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS. The P400 has FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS, while the R5 M320 has none. TDP is 30 W versus not listed, slot width is single-slot versus IGP, and bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus portable-device dependent. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1), and Vulkan support is 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Release dates are 2017-02-06 versus 2015-05-04.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins in Vulkan graphics performance, with a 20.1% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. It also wins on memory bandwidth (32.06 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s), pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s), FP32 compute (641.0 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS), and API support (Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170). Its single-slot form factor and 30 W TDP make it suitable for compact desktop workstations, and its 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor setups. The P400 is the pick for any Vulkan-based rendering or graphics workload.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins in OpenCL compute, with a 15.9% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL. It also wins on memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), shading units (320 versus 256), TMUs (20 versus 16), and texture rate is closer but still lower at 17.10 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s. Its IGP form factor means it is integrated into laptops, making it the only option for systems that cannot accommodate a discrete card. The R5 M320 is the pick for OpenCL-based compute tasks, especially where larger memory capacity is beneficial, though its lower bandwidth and pixel rate limit its graphics potential. The data shows a 1-1 split in wins, with each GPU claiming one benchmark—so the choice is purely workload-driven.