GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 350 and NVIDIA Quadro 5000 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they represent vastly different design philosophies and eras. The R7 350 is a low-power, modern-process GPU aimed at general consumer workloads, while the Quadro 5000 is a workstation-class card from an earlier generation, built for maximum compute and professional reliability. Benchmark data shows a narrow overall victory for the AMD card, with an average benchmark score of 7425 compared to the Quadro’s 7289, placing both in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The two cards occupy the same performance tier, but their strengths lie in different areas, making the choice highly dependent on the intended use case.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 350 wins decisively in OpenCL compute performance. In the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 350 scores 7792 against the Quadro 5000’s 7289, a 6.9% advantage. This makes the R7 350 the better choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL acceleration, such as video encoding, physics simulations, or general-purpose GPU computing in applications that support the API. The R7 350 also holds a significant edge in modern API support, featuring Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro 5000 lacks Vulkan support entirely and only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). For users running contemporary games or applications that rely on these newer APIs, the R7 350 is the only viable option between the two.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000, despite losing the single benchmark, wins on raw memory bandwidth and capacity. It offers 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the R7 350’s 2 GB on a 128-bit bus at 72.00 GB/s. This 66.7% bandwidth advantage makes the Quadro 5000 better suited for large, bandwidth-intensive datasets that fit within its memory pool, such as high-resolution texture loading or multi-sample anti-aliasing in professional visualization tools. The Quadro 5000 also has a higher pixel rate (11.29 GPixel/s vs 12.80 GPixel/s, wait, that is actually lower) and a higher texture rate (22.57 GTexel/s vs 25.60 GTexel/s, also lower). Correcting the data: the R7 350 wins on both pixel rate (12.80 vs 11.29 GPixel/s) and texture rate (25.60 vs 22.57 GTexel/s). The Quadro’s advantage is strictly in memory bandwidth and capacity, making it a niche winner for specific memory-bound workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark. The R7 350 is built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². This modern, efficient design allows the card to operate at just 55 W TDP, requiring no power connectors and only a 250 W suggested PSU. In contrast, the Quadro 5000 uses NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, built on an older 40 nm process. It houses 3,100 million transistors on a massive 529 mm² die, with a transistor density of only 5.9M per mm², a reflection of the less advanced manufacturing node. This older design draws 152 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and needs a 450 W PSU.

The compute resources are distributed differently. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The Quadro’s higher ROP count (40 vs 16) is notable, as it theoretically improves fill-rate-bound operations, though the data shows the R7 350’s higher clock speeds, implied by its superior pixel rate, give it the practical edge. The R7 350’s memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro’s runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The Quadro compensates with its wider 320-bit bus, but the R7 350’s faster memory clock and newer architecture allow it to win the compute benchmark.

The R7 350 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 5000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. This halves the theoretical transfer bandwidth between the GPU and system memory for the Quadro, which can matter for workloads that stream data to and from the CPU. Display outputs also differ: the R7 350 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the Quadro 5000 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort (no HDMI). The R7 350 is a single-slot card at 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length, while the Quadro 5000 is a dual-slot card at 248 mm (9.8 inches) and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, requiring more physical clearance in a case.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon R7 350 is the better all-around card for modern workloads. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark (OpenCL, 6.9% ahead), offers superior pixel and texture rates, supports newer APIs (Vulkan 1.2.170, DirectX 12 11_1), and does so at a fraction of the power draw (55 W vs 152 W) and physical footprint (single-slot vs dual-slot). It also has a higher average benchmark score (7425 vs 7289) and ties the Quadro in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. For any user prioritizing compute performance, API compatibility, or system efficiency, the R7 350 is the clear pick.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 should only be chosen for specific scenarios where its memory advantages are critical. With 2.5 GB of memory and 120.0 GB/s bandwidth, 66.7% more bandwidth than the R7 350, it can handle memory-intensive tasks that the AMD card would struggle with. However, this comes at the cost of higher power draw, larger size, and no Vulkan support. The Quadro 5000 also trails in raw compute (722.3 GFLOPS vs 819.2 GFLOPS), pixel rate, and texture rate. The launch MSRP is 2,499 USD, but this is irrelevant for modern purchasing decisions given both cards are end-of-life. For the vast majority of use cases, the R7 350 wins on performance and practicality.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 is faster, scoring 7792 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the Quadro 5000’s 7289, a 6.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro 5000 support Vulkan?

A: No. The Quadro 5000 does not support Vulkan, while the R7 350 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has significantly more, at 120.0 GB/s versus the R7 350’s 72.00 GB/s. The Quadro also has more memory capacity (2.5 GB vs 2 GB).

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The R7 350 has a 55 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a 250 W suggested PSU. The Quadro 5000 has a 152 W TDP, requires one 6-pin connector, and needs a 450 W PSU.

Q: Which card is physically smaller?

A: The R7 350 is a single-slot card at 168 mm (6.6 inches) long. The Quadro 5000 is a dual-slot card at 248 mm (9.8 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall.

Q: Which card supports a newer PCIe standard?

A: The R7 350 supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 5000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon R7 350 wins with a score of 7792 against the Quadro 5000’s 7289. This 6.9% delta is the single largest performance gap between the two cards in any metric. The R7 350’s advantage here can be attributed to its newer GCN architecture, higher shading unit count (512 vs 352), and faster memory clock (1125 MHz vs 750 MHz), which together overcome the Quadro’s memory bandwidth advantage.

Beyond the single benchmark, the R7 350 also wins on raw compute throughput. It delivers 819.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Quadro’s 722.3 GFLOPS, a 13.4% lead. This aligns with the OpenCL result, confirming that the R7 350 is the stronger compute card. The R7 350 also leads in pixel rate (12.80 GPixel/s vs 11.29 GPixel/s) and texture rate (25.60 GTexel/s vs 22.57 GTexel/s), though the Quadro’s higher ROP count (40 vs 16) and TMU count (44 vs 32) show that NVIDIA was aiming for different strengths, ones that the benchmark data does not validate as effective in practice.

The Quadro 5000’s only clear victories are in memory specifications: it has 2.5 GB of memory versus 2 GB, and 120.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 72.00 GB/s. These are substantial differences, but they do not translate into a benchmark win in the available data. The Quadro’s memory advantage is likely most relevant in professional applications that are memory-bound, but for general compute and modern API workloads, the R7 350 dominates.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The R7 350 uses a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 5000 uses 40 nm. The R7 350 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, whereas the Quadro has 3,100 million on a 529 mm² die. Memory configuration differs significantly: the R7 350 has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro has 2.5 GB GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs.

Clock speeds also diverge: the R7 350’s memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro’s runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). Power and physical specs are polar opposites: the R7 350 is a 55 W single-slot card with no power connectors, while the Quadro is a 152 W dual-slot card requiring a 6-pin connector. The R7 350 is 168 mm long, while the Quadro is 248 mm long and 111 mm tall. The R7 350 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the R7 350 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. Finally, the R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan.