AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the primary performance difference between the AMD Radeon R7 250 and the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22,920, which is 67% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 250's score of 7,557. The Quadro M5000M wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: How do these two GPUs compare in terms of memory capacity and type?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and larger die size?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What are the clock speeds for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has a base clock of 962 MHz, a boost clock of 1051 MHz, and memory running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Q: How do their form factors and power requirements differ?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 55 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is an MXM Module with no power connectors and a 100 W TDP, with no suggested PSU listed.

Q: What is the production status and release timing for these GPUs?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The AMD Radeon R7 250 was released on October 7, 2013, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M was released on August 17, 2015.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R7 250 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using the Cape Verde chip, belonging to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, part of the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The R7 250 packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The Quadro M5000M is substantially larger, with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a density of 13.1M per mm². The larger die and higher transistor count enable the Quadro to offer significantly more compute resources.

In terms of execution units, the R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The Quadro M5000M more than triples these numbers with 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Neither GPU features dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The R7 250 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro M5000M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro's memory bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s is over five times higher than the R7 250's 28.80 GB/s.

API support differs as well. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version give the Quadro an edge in modern workloads.

The R7 250 is a desktop single-slot card with display outputs including 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The Quadro M5000M is a mobile MXM Module with a MXM-B (3.0) interface and display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22,920, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7,557. The delta is 67% in favor of the Quadro M5000M.

This is a substantial margin. The Quadro M5000M delivers roughly three times the OpenCL compute performance of the R7 250. When looking at the broader benchmark suite for the Quadro, the results are mixed across different APIs. The Quadro scores 35 in Passmark DirectX 10, 54 in DirectX 11, 29 in DirectX 12, and 119 in DirectX 9. Its Passmark G2D score is 476, G3D score is 7,062, and GPU Compute score is 2,756.

The R7 250 has no other recorded benchmarks besides the Geekbench OpenCL score. The average benchmark score for the R7 250 is 7,557, while the Quadro M5000M's average is 6,481. This average is dragged down by the Quadro's low Passmark DirectX scores, despite its strong OpenCL showing.

The percentile ranks tell an interesting story. The R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M5000M sits at the 37th percentile. Despite winning the head-to-head OpenCL test by a wide margin, the Quadro's overall percentile is slightly lower due to its weak performance in legacy DirectX tests.

The nearest rivals for the R7 250 include the Intel Arc A310 (7,550 average score, 0.1% delta), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, -0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, 1.1%), and AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, 1.5%). For the Quadro M5000M, the nearest rivals are AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6,476, 0.1%), NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6,493, -0.2%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513, -0.5%), and Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6,554, -1.1%).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category:

• Chip and architecture: Cape Verde with GCN 1.0 vs. GM204 with Maxwell 2.0
• Generation: Volcanic Islands (R7 200) vs. Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)
• Transistors: 1,500 million vs. 5,200 million
• Die size: 123 mm² vs. 398 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.2M / mm² vs. 13.1M / mm²
• Base clock: Not listed vs. 962 MHz
• Boost clock: Not listed vs. 1051 MHz
• Memory clock: 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective vs. 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 1024 MB vs. 8 GB
• Memory type: DDR3 vs. GDDR5
• Memory bus width: 128 bit vs. 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs. 160.4 GB/s
• Shading units: 512 vs. 1,536
• TMUs: 32 vs. 96
• ROPs: 16 vs. 64
• Pixel rate: 14.80 GPixel/s vs. 67.26 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 29.60 GTexel/s vs. 100.9 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 947.2 GFLOPS vs. 3.229 TFLOPS
• TDP: 55 W vs. 100 W
• Slot width: Single-slot vs. MXM Module
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs. MXM-B (3.0)
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 vs. Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX support: 12 (11_1) vs. 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.170 vs. 1.4
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs. not listed
• Release date: October 7, 2013 vs. August 17, 2015

The only specifications they share are the 28 nm process node, TSMC as the foundry, no power connectors, null RT and tensor cores, null FP16 support, OpenGL 4.6 support, and end-of-life production status.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,920 is 67% higher than the R7 250's 7,557. The Quadro also dominates in theoretical throughput metrics: its FP32 output of 3.229 TFLOPS is roughly 3.4 times the R7 250's 947.2 GFLOPS. Texture rate is 100.9 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s, a 3.4x advantage. Pixel rate is 67.26 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, a 4.5x advantage.

Memory bandwidth is another area of clear Quadro superiority. At 160.4 GB/s, it offers 5.6 times the bandwidth of the R7 250's 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro also has 8 GB of VRAM compared to 1024 MB, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins in power efficiency. Its 55 W TDP is nearly half the Quadro's 100 W, meaning it delivers its performance at a much lower power draw. The R7 250 also has a smaller physical footprint as a single-slot desktop card, while the Quadro is an MXM module designed for laptops.

The R7 250 also wins on compatibility with desktop display outputs, offering DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2 directly on the card. The Quadro's display outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in.

In terms of benchmark percentiles, the R7 250 ranks at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, which is higher than the Quadro's 37th percentile. This suggests the R7 250 is more competitive within its peer group, despite the Quadro's superior raw numbers.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the stronger GPU for compute-heavy workloads. Its 67% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with superiority in every throughput metric, makes it the choice for tasks that demand raw performance. The 8 GB GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth is particularly important for large working sets, and the higher DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 support ensures better compatibility with modern APIs.

The AMD Radeon R7 250 is the better option for power-constrained systems. Its 55 W TDP is less than the Quadro's 100 W, and it requires a suggested PSU of only 250 W. For users with a desktop system that needs a simple single-slot card with direct display outputs, the R7 250 offers a more straightforward installation experience.

However, the R7 250's limited 1024 MB DDR3 memory and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth are significant bottlenecks for any modern workload. Its 512 shading units and 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 output place it firmly in entry-level territory. The Quadro M5000M, with 1,536 shading units and 3.229 TFLOPS, operates in a different performance class entirely.

For users who prioritize compute performance, the Quadro M5000M is the clear winner based on the recorded data. For users who prioritize low power consumption and desktop form factor, the R7 250 has advantages, but the performance gap is substantial. The final choice should depend on whether the workload is compute-bound or power-bound, as the benchmark results show no scenario where the R7 250 outperforms the Quadro M5000M in raw speed.