AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 and AMD Radeon R7 250 occupy drastically different tiers of the GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects a complete mismatch in compute capability. The Quadro P5000, a professional Pascal-generation part, delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 52,509, which is 594.8% higher than the R7 250’s 7,557. While both cards share the same 41st percentile ranking among all GPUs, that percentile is misleading without context — it simply indicates the R7 250’s score lands near the bottom of the distribution, while the Quadro P5000’s score is held back by its professional-market positioning and driver optimizations rather than raw hardware limits. The data shows no benchmark where the R7 250 wins, making the choice between them straightforward for any workload that depends on raw compute throughput.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is the only viable option for any task requiring serious computational power. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 52,509 dwarfs the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7,557, a gap of 594.8% that no software optimization can bridge. The R7 250, with its 512 shading units and 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput, is fundamentally a low-end part from 2013, suited only for basic display output or legacy applications. The Quadro P5000, by contrast, packs 2,560 shading units and 8.873 TFLOPS FP32, placing it in an entirely different performance class. For professionals running CAD, scientific simulations, or GPU-accelerated rendering, the Quadro P5000 is the clear pick. For a user who only needs a basic display adapter for a workstation with no compute demands, the R7 250 could suffice — but the benchmark data offers no scenario where it outperforms the Quadro P5000. The verdict is not a matter of preference; it is a matter of the data showing a 594.8% performance deficit that makes the R7 250 irrelevant for any compute-heavy use case.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Quadro P5000 uses the GP104 chip built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC with 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². In contrast, the R7 250 uses AMD’s Cape Verde chip based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process also at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a density of 12.2M per mm². The process node advantage alone — 16 nm versus 28 nm — explains much of the Quadro P5000’s efficiency and performance headroom. The Quadro P5000 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 250 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, though both share OpenGL 4.6. The Pascal architecture also brings asynchronous compute and improved memory compression, though the fact pack does not detail those features — the measurable differences are in the raw specifications: the Quadro P5000 has 5x the shading units, 5x the texture mapping units, and 4x the ROPs compared to the R7 250.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one common benchmark exists in the fact pack: Geekbench OpenCL. The results are stark. The Quadro P5000 scores 52,509, while the R7 250 scores 7,557. That translates to a 594.8% advantage for the Quadro P5000. To put that in perspective, the Quadro P5000’s score is more than six times higher. This is not a marginal difference — it is a generational and architectural chasm. The Quadro P5000’s nearest rivals in the overall database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (average score 8,040, delta 0%), the GTX 650 Ti (8,053, delta -0.2%), and the GTX 650 Ti Boost (8,067, delta -0.3%). Those cards cluster around the 8,000 mark, which is ironically close to the R7 250’s average of 7,557. The R7 250’s nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, delta 0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, delta -0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, delta 1.1%). This means the R7 250 is competing with entry-level cards from years later, while the Quadro P5000 sits in a completely different performance stratum despite its low percentile ranking. The single head-to-head benchmark tells the entire story: there is no contest.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 scores 52,509, which is 594.8% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7,557.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are listed at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, but this masks the massive absolute score difference; the percentile reflects their respective positions in a skewed distribution, not comparable performance.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 has 1,024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan 1.4?

A: Only the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 supports Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Radeon R7 250 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro P5000 has a TDP of 180 W and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector with a suggested 450 W PSU. The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, needs no power connectors, and works with a suggested 250 W PSU.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro P5000 has 2,560 shading units, while the R7 250 has 512 — a 5x difference.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P5000 wins the only benchmark tested, but the use-case split extends beyond that single score. For compute-heavy workloads — OpenCL acceleration, scientific computing, GPU rendering, or machine learning inference — the Quadro P5000’s 8.873 TFLOPS FP32 and 16 GB of GDDR5X memory with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth make it the only serious option. Its 277.3 GTexel/s texture rate and 110.9 GPixel/s pixel rate also support professional visualization tasks. The R7 250, with 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, is limited to basic 2D desktop acceleration, legacy DirectX 9 or 11 applications, or acting as a placeholder GPU in a system where compute is handled elsewhere (e.g., a separate accelerator). The R7 250’s 14.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 29.60 GTexel/s texture rate are adequate for simple output but nothing more. The Quadro P5000 also supports more display outputs (1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2), making it better for multi-monitor professional setups. In short, the Quadro P5000 wins every compute and graphics task in the data; the R7 250 only wins on power efficiency and physical size, which are not benchmark categories.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro P5000 uses a 16 nm process, while the R7 250 uses 28 nm. Transistor counts are 7,200 million versus 1,500 million. Die sizes are 314 mm² versus 123 mm². Clock speeds: the Quadro P5000 has a base clock of 1,607 MHz and boost of 1,733 MHz, while the R7 250 lists no base or boost clocks — only a memory clock of 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective). Memory configuration: 16 GB GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus versus 1,024 MB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth is 288.5 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. Shading units: 2,560 versus 512. TMUs: 160 versus 32. ROPs: 64 versus 16. Pixel rate is 110.9 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 277.3 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 8.873 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro P5000 supports FP16 at 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio); the R7 250 has no FP16 data. TDP is 180 W versus 55 W. The Quadro P5000 is dual-slot with a 1x 8-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU; the R7 250 is single-slot with no connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. Physical length is 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 168 mm (6.6 inches). Display outputs: the Quadro P5000 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a; the R7 250 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1); Vulkan is 1.4 versus 1.2.170; both support OpenGL 4.6. The launch MSRP for the Quadro P5000 is 2,499 USD; the R7 250 has no listed launch MSRP. Release dates are September 30, 2016, and October 7, 2013, respectively.