AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

The data shows a decisive generational and performance-class divide between the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 and the AMD Radeon R7 350. The Quadro P5000 is a professional workstation card built on the Pascal architecture, while the R7 350 is an entry-level desktop part based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture. In the head-to-head benchmarks available, the two cards split their wins, but the magnitude of the victories reveals a stark reality: the P5000 dominates in compute workloads by an enormous margin, while the R7 350 manages a narrow win in one graphics API test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards were tested in Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, with each card winning one test. However, the results are not close in either direction.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 delivers a score of 52,509, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores a mere 7,792. This represents a 573.9% advantage for the P5000, a performance gap that is not merely incremental but indicative of a completely different performance tier. The P5000's compute throughput, listed as 8.873 TFLOPS FP32, dwarfs the R7 350's 819.2 GFLOPS FP32. This metric alone explains the massive delta in OpenCL performance, where raw shader and compute capability are the primary drivers.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn, but only slightly. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7,057, edging out the NVIDIA Quadro P5000's 6,342. The delta here is -10.1% from the perspective of the P5000, meaning the R7 350 is about 10% faster in this specific test. While this is a win for the AMD card, it is worth remembering the absolute scores are within a similar range, and this result does not compensate for the colossal deficit seen in OpenCL.

The head-to-head win count is 1-1, but the data emphasizes that these wins are not equivalent. The P5000's OpenCL victory is by a factor of nearly seven, whereas the R7 350's Vulkan win is a modest single-digit percentage. When looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the P5000 averages 8,039 across all tests, while the R7 350 averages 7,425. This places the P5000 in the 41st percentile of all GPUs and the R7 350 in the 40th percentile, indicating that despite the P5000's raw power in compute, other factors in the benchmark suite pull its overall average down.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 has a higher average benchmark score of 8,039, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 350's 7,425.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The P5000 is 573.9% faster than the R7 350, scoring 52,509 versus 7,792.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark against the P5000?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon R7 350 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 7,057 against the P5000's 6,342, a 10.1% advantage.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The P5000 features 16 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 has a pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 has a pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 and the AMD Radeon R7 350 are marked as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP104 chip, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9M / mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 350 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2M / mm².

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA card. The P5000 features 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). The R7 350, by comparison, has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 5x difference in shading units and 4x difference in TMUs and ROPs directly translates into the massive performance disparity observed in compute tests.

Memory architecture also differs significantly. The P5000 uses 16 GB of GDDR5X memory with a 256-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 288.5 GB/s. The R7 350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The P5000's memory clock is listed at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective), while the R7 350's is 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The P5000 also has a distinct advantage in API support, offering DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict: the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is the superior card for any workload that leverages raw compute power, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 has a narrow edge in a single Vulkan test that does not translate into an overall performance win.

For users requiring maximum throughput in OpenCL-based compute tasks, the P5000 is the only choice. Its 573.9% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL is overwhelming and is supported by its higher average benchmark score of 8,039 versus 7,425. The P5000's 16 GB of GDDR5X memory and 288.5 GB/s bandwidth also make it suitable for large datasets, a capability the R7 350's 2 GB frame buffer cannot match.

The R7 350's win in Geekbench Vulkan, while real, is a narrow 10.1% margin. Given that the P5000 is a dual-slot card with a 180 W TDP and requires a 450 W power supply and an 8-pin connector, while the R7 350 is a single-slot, 55 W card with no power connectors and a 250 W PSU suggestion, the AMD card is clearly positioned for low-power or legacy systems. However, the performance data does not indicate that the R7 350 is a suitable alternative for professional work; it merely wins one API-specific test.

The P5000's percentile ranking of 41 versus the R7 350's 40 is close, but the average scores tell the real story. The P5000 outperforms the R7 350 in the overall average by 614 points. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro P5000 is a professional-grade compute solution, and the R7 350 is a basic card whose sole benchmark win does not offset its massive compute deficit.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key specification differences where the two cards diverge.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P5000 | AMD Radeon R7 350 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 314 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.5 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 512 |

| TMUs | 160 | 32 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 110.9 GPixel/s | 12.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 277.3 GTexel/s | 25.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 8.873 TFLOPS | 819.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 180 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 250 W |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Card Length | 267 mm | 168 mm |

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results define distinct use cases for each card.

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 wins in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 52,509, which is 573.9% higher than the R7 350. This indicates that the P5000 is the clear choice for OpenCL-based compute tasks, such as GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulations, or machine learning workloads that rely on FP32 throughput. Its 16 GB of GDDR5X memory also provides a significant advantage for applications that require large memory footprints, such as high-resolution texture loading or complex 3D scene data. The P5000's higher texture rate of 277.3 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s further support its dominance in graphics-intensive professional applications.

The AMD Radeon R7 350 wins in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 7,057, which is 10.1% higher than the P5000's 6,342. This suggests that in Vulkan-based applications that are not heavily compute-bound, the R7 350 can offer a slight performance edge. However, this win is narrow and occurs in a lower absolute score range. The R7 350's advantage lies in its power efficiency and physical footprint: it is a single-slot, 55 W card with no external power connectors, making it suitable for compact or legacy systems with minimal power delivery. Its smaller 168 mm length also allows for installation in smaller chassis. For users running Vulkan-based games or applications on a constrained system, the R7 350 provides a measurable, albeit modest, performance benefit over the P5000 in that specific API.