AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 and NVIDIA Quadro P400 are two end-of-life graphics processors from different market segments, with the former targeting mobile systems and the latter designed as a low-profile desktop workstation card. Benchmark data reveals a near-total performance tie in average scores, with the R5 M335 achieving 4752 and the Quadro P400 achieving 4684, a difference of just 1.5%. However, this aggregate similarity masks distinct application-specific strengths, as the two GPUs trade wins in the OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads, and their underlying architectures diverge significantly in process technology, memory subsystem, and feature support.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R5 M335 secures its victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 4745 against the Quadro P400's 4249. This represents an 11.7% lead for the AMD part, making OpenCL compute workloads the clear home turf for the older GCN architecture. This advantage is notable because OpenCL is often used in professional and scientific applications, and the R5 M335 demonstrates that its 320 shading units can be effectively marshalled for general-purpose compute tasks despite its modest memory bandwidth.

The Quadro P400, conversely, dominates in the Geekbench Vulkan test, posting a score of 5119 versus the R5 M335's 4758, a 7.1% margin in favor of the NVIDIA card. Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead graphics and compute API, and this result indicates that the Pascal architecture's more efficient command processing and hardware scheduling give it a substantial edge in API-level performance. For any workload leveraging Vulkan, whether gaming, rendering, or compute, the Quadro P400 is the unequivocal choice.

The split is exactly 1-1 in wins, but the margin of victory matters. The R5 M335's OpenCL win is larger in percentage terms (11.7%) than the Quadro P400's Vulkan win (7.1%), suggesting that the AMD card's compute advantage is more pronounced, while the NVIDIA card's modern-API advantage, while real, is comparatively smaller. The average benchmark score, which weights both tests equally, lands the R5 M335 slightly ahead, but the 1.5% delta is within the noise of typical benchmarking variance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The Radeon R5 M335 uses the "Exo" chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The Quadro P400, in contrast, uses the GP107 chip based on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This die contains 3,300 million transistors across 132 mm², achieving a much higher density of 25.0 million per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The R5 M335 pairs its 2 GB frame buffer with DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro P400 also has 2 GB of memory and a 64-bit bus, but uses GDDR5, more than doubling bandwidth to 32.06 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage is critical for texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution rendering, and it partially explains the Quadro's Vulkan performance lead. The R5 M335's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Quadro P400's memory runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Compute resource allocation also differs. The R5 M335 has more shading units (320 vs 256), more texture mapping units (20 vs 16), but fewer ROPs (8 vs 16). The Quadro P400's doubling of ROPs explains its much higher pixel rate: 20.03 GPixel/s versus the R5 M335's 8.24 GPixel/s. Texture rates are nearly identical (20.60 vs 20.03 GTexel/s), and peak FP32 performance is close (659.2 vs 641.0 GFLOPS). The Quadro P400 also has a negligible FP16 capability at 10.02 GFLOPS, while the R5 M335 lists no FP16 support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has an average benchmark score of 4752, which is 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P400's 4684. This places the R5 M335 in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P400 sits in the 27th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro P400 wins decisively in Vulkan, scoring 5119 compared to the R5 M335's 4758, a 7.1% advantage. This is the Quadro's biggest single-test win and reflects the Pascal architecture's superior handling of modern low-overhead APIs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro P400 offers 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory, more than double the R5 M335's 14.40 GB/s from DDR3. Both use a 64-bit memory bus and have 2 GB of memory.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (released October 2015) and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (released February 2017) are listed as end-of-life products.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R5 M335 has 320 shading units, which is 25% more than the Quadro P400's 256. This contributes to the AMD card's higher FP32 throughput of 659.2 GFLOPS versus 641.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the API compatibility differences?

A: The R5 M335 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it a more complete DirectX 12 feature set and a newer Vulkan version.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M335 | NVIDIA Quadro P400 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 690 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 32.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 256 |

| TMUs | 20 | 16 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 20.03 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 20.03 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 659.2 GFLOPS | 641.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None listed | 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| Base Clock | None listed | 1228 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None listed | 1252 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 1002 MHz / 4 Gbps effective |

| TDP | None listed | 30 W |

| Slot Width | None listed | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 200 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-10-20 | 2017-02-06 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Volta |

| Dimensions (Length) | None listed | 150 mm (5.9 inches) |

| Dimensions (Height) | None listed | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test provides the R5 M335's clearest victory. With a score of 4745 versus the Quadro P400's 4249, the AMD card leads by 11.7%. This result is consistent with the R5 M335's higher shading unit count and greater FP32 peak, but it notably overcomes the Quadro's bandwidth advantage. In this test, the R5 M335 also sits just 0.5% above the Radeon R8 M445DX and 0.7% above the Radeon R5 M255, showing it clusters with other mid-range mobile AMD parts. The Quadro P400's OpenCL score places it 1.2% above the GeForce GTX 970M and 0.6% above the Radeon R5 M320, indicating its compute performance is competitive with older mobile parts despite its workstation positioning.

The Vulkan test flips the result. The Quadro P400 scores 5119, beating the R5 M335's 4758 by 7.1%. This margin is significant in practical terms, as Vulkan is increasingly common in professional visualization and modern game engines. The Quadro's Pascal architecture, with its native Vulkan 1.4 support, clearly extracts more performance from the API than the R5 M335's GCN 1.0 implementation, which is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 M335's Vulkan score is actually its higher of the two benchmarks (4758 vs 4745), while the Quadro's Vulkan score is substantially higher than its OpenCL score (5119 vs 4249), showing the NVIDIA card is much more optimized for Vulkan than for OpenCL.

When averaged, the two tests produce a virtual tie. The R5 M335's 11.7% OpenCL win and the Quadro P400's 7.1% Vulkan win combine to give the AMD card a 1.5% aggregate edge. This puts the R5 M335 within 0.8% of the GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB in average score, evidence of how narrow the performance envelope is for these low-end parts. The Quadro P400's nearest rival list includes the Radeon R8 M445DX at -0.9% and the GTX 970M at +1.2%, confirming its position in the same performance tier as the AMD part.

The Verdict

The data points to a split decision based on workload. For OpenCL compute tasks, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 is the better performer, offering an 11.7% lead over the Quadro P400. This makes it the choice for legacy compute applications that rely on OpenCL, where its higher shading unit count and FP32 throughput deliver measurable gains. The R5 M335's 28th percentile ranking and average score of 4752 also put it marginally ahead in aggregate terms.

For Vulkan-based workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is clearly superior, winning by 7.1% and posting its best score (5119) in that test. The Quadro's modern Pascal architecture, newer Vulkan 1.4 support, and doubled memory bandwidth (32.06 vs 14.40 GB/s) make it the more future-proof option for applications that have adopted low-overhead APIs. Its 27th percentile ranking is nearly identical to the R5 M335, but its raw Vulkan performance is substantially higher.

The choice ultimately depends on the software environment. Users running OpenCL-centric applications should select the R5 M335, while those working with Vulkan-capable software should choose the Quadro P400. The Quadro P400 also offers practical advantages as a desktop card: it is a single-slot, 150 mm long, 69 mm tall device with three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a 30 W TDP, and a 200 W suggested PSU. The R5 M335, being a mobile part, has display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent" and lacks a listed TDP or physical dimensions. For a workstation user needing a discrete desktop GPU with modern API support and robust display connectivity, the Quadro P400 is the rational pick. For a mobile user prioritizing raw OpenCL compute, the R5 M335 holds the edge. The 1.5% average score difference is immaterial; the 11.7% and 7.1% test-specific deltas are what should drive the decision.