AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records two distinct tests, and the results split cleanly between the two GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 takes one decisive victory, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 edges ahead in the other. The overall win count is tied at one apiece, but the magnitude of the wins is not symmetrical.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro P400 delivers a score of 5119 against the Radeon R5 M330's 4037. That is a 26.8% advantage for the NVIDIA part, the single largest margin recorded in this comparison. The Vulkan result is particularly notable because it represents the modern graphics API workload, where the Quadro's architecture shows a clear edge. The Radeon R5 M330 trails by more than a quarter of the score, a substantial gap that underscores a fundamental difference in how these two GPUs handle compute tasks under Vulkan.

The Geekbench OpenCL result tells the opposite story, though with a much smaller margin. The Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302, while the Quadro P400 scores 4249. The delta is only 1.2% in favor of the AMD part. This is a narrow lead, well within the range of run-to-run variation, but the recorded data does show the Radeon ahead. The Quadro's OpenCL performance is competitive, but it does not match the Radeon's output in this specific test.

Context from the nearest rivals helps interpret these scores. The Quadro P400's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4684, placing it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, scores 4727, which is 0.9% higher. Another rival, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, scores 4657, which is 0.6% lower. The Quadro sits in a tight cluster where small percentage differences separate it from both competitors. This suggests the Quadro's overall performance is typical for its class, not an outlier in either direction.

The Radeon R5 M330's average benchmark score is 4170, placing it in the 25th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4151 (0.4% lower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at 4193 (0.5% higher). The Radeon also sits in a close grouping, with its average score within roughly 2% of its nearest competitors. The percentile difference between the two cards is small: 27th versus 25th. The Quadro ranks slightly higher overall, but the gap is not large.

The Vulkan result is the decisive factor in this comparison. A 26.8% lead is not a marginal difference; it indicates a clear architectural advantage for the Quadro in this workload. The OpenCL result, by contrast, is essentially a tie, with a 1.2% margin that could easily flip with a different driver or test revision. When weighing the two benchmarks, the Vulkan win carries more weight because of its size.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split follows directly from the benchmark results. The Quadro P400 is the stronger choice for Vulkan-based workloads. The 26.8% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is the defining statistic of this comparison. Any application that leverages Vulkan for compute or rendering will see a measurable performance benefit on the Quadro. This includes modern game engines, CAD visualization tools, and compute frameworks that target Vulkan as their primary API.

The Radeon R5 M330 takes the OpenCL category, but only barely. Its 1.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is within the margin of error for most benchmark suites. In practice, this means the two GPUs are essentially interchangeable for OpenCL tasks. The Radeon's advantage is real in the recorded data, but it is not large enough to recommend one card over the other solely on OpenCL performance. For workloads that rely exclusively on OpenCL, the Radeon offers a marginal edge, but the difference is unlikely to be perceptible in real-world applications.

Beyond raw scores, the Radeon's lower power draw is a factor for mobile or compact systems. The Radeon's TDP is 18 W, compared to the Quadro's 30 W. The Radeon is also classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), meaning it is designed for portable devices where power efficiency is critical. The Quadro is a single-slot discrete card requiring a 200 W suggested power supply. For battery-powered systems, the Radeon's efficiency profile is clearly superior, even if its benchmark scores are lower.

The Quadro, however, offers workstation-oriented features that the Radeon lacks. Its display outputs are three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, which support modern high-resolution monitors. The Radeon's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely on the host laptop's implementation. For professional desktop workstations with multiple monitors, the Quadro's dedicated outputs are a practical advantage that does not show up in compute benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Quadro P400 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The chip, codenamed GP107, contains 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 25.0 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a modern, dense design that allows for high clock speeds and efficient power usage.

The Radeon R5 M330 is built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip, codenamed Exo, contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.3 million per square millimeter. This is an older, less dense design from an earlier generation. The Radeon was released in 2015, while the Quadro followed in 2017, so the Quadro benefits from two additional years of process technology improvements.

The compute units differ in configuration. The Quadro has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The Radeon has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, but only 8 raster output pipelines. The Radeon has more shading units and TMUs, but half the ROPs of the Quadro. This explains the divergent fill rates: the Quadro achieves 20.03 GPixel/s pixel rate and 20.03 GTexel/s texture rate, while the Radeon achieves 8.24 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s. The Quadro's pixel throughput is more than double the Radeon's, while the texture rates are nearly identical.

The FP32 compute output is remarkably close: 641.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon. Despite the Radeon having more shading units, the Quadro's higher clock speeds (1228 MHz base, 1252 MHz boost versus 955 MHz base, 1030 MHz boost) narrow the gap. The FP16 output is where the architectures diverge sharply: the Quadro records 10.02 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the Radeon has no FP16 data recorded. This indicates the Quadro has a token FP16 capability, while the Radeon effectively lacks it.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on the same 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro's memory bandwidth is more than double the Radeon's, which directly impacts performance in memory-bound workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The manufacturing process is 14 nm for the Quadro versus 28 nm for the Radeon. The transistor count is 3,300 million versus 690 million. The die size is 132 mm² versus 56 mm². The clock speeds are higher on the Quadro: 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost versus 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. The memory clock is 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on the Quadro versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on the Radeon.

Memory bandwidth is 32.06 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a 2.2x difference. The shading unit count is 256 versus 320, favoring the Radeon. The TMU count is 16 versus 20, also favoring the Radeon. The ROP count is 16 versus 8, favoring the Quadro. The pixel rate is 20.03 GPixel/s versus 8.24 GPixel/s, a 2.4x difference favoring the Quadro. The texture rate is 20.03 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s, essentially a tie with a slight edge to the Radeon.

Power consumption is 30 W for the Quadro versus 18 W for the Radeon. The Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the Radeon is an IGP with no power connectors. The Quadro requires a 200 W suggested power supply; the Radeon has no suggested PSU listed. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Quadro versus PCIe 3.0 x8 on the Radeon.

The API support differs. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Vulkan version difference (1.4 versus 1.2.170) is consistent with the Quadro's large Vulkan benchmark lead. The Radeon's DirectX support is capped at 11_1, which is a lower feature level than the Quadro's 12_1.

The Quadro's release date is 2017-02-06, while the Radeon's is 2015-05-04. 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. Both cards are marked as end-of-life in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has an average benchmark score of 4684, placing it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has an average score of 4170, placing it in the 25th percentile.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro P400 scores 5119 against the Radeon R5 M330's 4037, a 26.8% difference.

Q: Does the Radeon R5 M330 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Radeon wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 4302 versus the Quadro's 4249, a 1.2% margin.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro P400 has 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory, while the Radeon R5 M330 has 14.40 GB/s from its DDR3 memory.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Radeon R5 M330 has 320 shading units, while the Quadro P400 has 256. Despite this, the Quadro's FP32 throughput is 641.0 GFLOPS versus the Radeon's 659.2 GFLOPS, a small gap.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro P400 has a TDP of 30 W and a suggested power supply of 200 W. The Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W and no suggested PSU listed, reflecting its integrated design.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. For Vulkan-based applications, the Quadro P400 is the definitive choice. Its 26.8% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is the largest margin recorded in this comparison, and it is supported by a newer architecture, higher memory bandwidth, and a more recent Vulkan API version. The Quadro also offers superior pixel throughput (20.03 GPixel/s versus 8.24 GPixel/s) and dedicated display outputs for multi-monitor setups.

For OpenCL-based workloads, the Radeon R5 M330 holds a narrow 1.2% edge. This is a real result in the recorded data, but it is small enough that other factors, such as power consumption, become more relevant. The Radeon's 18 W TDP makes it the better fit for battery-powered portable systems, where the Quadro's 30 W TDP and 200 W suggested PSU would be impractical.

The average benchmark scores favor the Quadro: 4684 versus 4170, a roughly 12% overall advantage. The percentile rankings (27th versus 25th) reflect this, though both cards sit in the lower quartile of all GPUs. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4727 (0.9% higher) and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4657 (0.6% lower), placing it in a tightly competitive mid-low tier. The Radeon's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at 4193 (0.5% higher) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4151 (0.4% lower), showing a similar clustering.

The verdict depends on the target system. For a desktop workstation with multiple monitors and Vulkan-centric professional software, the Quadro P400 is the stronger option. Its memory bandwidth, pixel rate, and Vulkan performance are all decisively better. For a low-power laptop or embedded system where OpenCL is the primary API and power draw is critical, the Radeon R5 M330 has the edge, albeit by a slim margin. The Quadro's overall average score is higher, and its Vulkan lead is commanding, but the Radeon's efficiency and OpenCL result keep it competitive in its intended use case.