AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M and AMD Radeon R7 M350 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the same era, but they target vastly different performance tiers. The data shows a decisive performance gap between the two, driven by fundamental architectural and specification differences. The Quadro M5000M, built on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, delivers benchmark scores that are multiples of the Radeon R7 M350's results, positioning it as a high-end professional solution, while the R7 M350 occupies a much more modest segment.

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap between the Quadro M5000M and the Radeon R7 M350 in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Quadro M5000M wins both head-to-head tests decisively. It leads by 227.9% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 339.3% in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU, and how do they compare?

A: The Quadro M5000M has an average benchmark score of 6481, while the Radeon R7 M350 scores 6327. This places the Quadro M5000M in the 37th percentile of all GPUs, with the R7 M350 just behind in the 36th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M5000M has a memory bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s, compared to just 16.00 GB/s for the Radeon R7 M350. This is a tenfold difference in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the Radeon R7 M350 outperforms the Quadro M5000M?

A: No. In the available head-to-head benchmark data, the Quadro M5000M wins both tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), resulting in a 2-0 win count in its favor.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Quadro M5000M has 1536 shading units and 96 texture mapping units (TMUs). The Radeon R7 M350 has only 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, which is exactly one-quarter of the NVIDIA GPU's resources in both categories.

Q: What are the DirectX and Vulkan API support levels for each GPU?

A: Both GPUs support DirectX 12, but the Quadro M5000M supports feature level 12_1 while the R7 M350 supports 12_0. For Vulkan, the Quadro M5000M supports version 1.4, whereas the R7 M350 supports version 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is built on the GM204 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 uses the Meso chip with the GCN 3.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with only 1,550 million transistors on a much smaller 125 mm² die, resulting in a density of 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter.

The sheer scale of the NVIDIA chip translates into a vastly larger execution engine. The Quadro M5000M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, whereas the R7 M350 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and a mere 8 ROPs. These are proportional differences that explain the massive performance deltas. The compute capabilities amplify this gap: the Quadro M5000M delivers 3.229 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R7 M350 manages only 779.5 GFLOPS. The AMD GPU does support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (779.5 GFLOPS), but the NVIDIA part does not list FP16 capabilities.

Memory subsystems are another major differentiator. The Quadro M5000M is equipped with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), which produces a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s. The R7 M350 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), resulting in only 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro M5000M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the R7 M350 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The NVIDIA chip is rated at 100 W TDP and comes as an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the AMD part has no listed TDP or slot width.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M5000M scores 22920 against the R7 M350's 6991, a delta of 227.9% in favor of NVIDIA. This is more than a threefold advantage, reflecting the Quadro's superior compute resources and memory bandwidth. The gap widens even further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro M5000M scores 24875 and the R7 M350 scores 5662, producing a delta of 339.3%. Here, the NVIDIA GPU is over four times faster.

These results are consistent with the architectural disparities. The Quadro M5000M has four times the shading units and TMUs, and eight times the ROPs of the R7 M350. Its memory bandwidth is an order of magnitude higher. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story, though the gap appears smaller: the Quadro M5000M averages 6481, which is only 2.4% higher than the R7 M350's 6327. This discrepancy between the specific head-to-head tests and the average scores is notable, as the average likely includes a broader range of workloads where the NVIDIA GPU's advantages are less pronounced.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the Quadro M5000M sits among a cluster of GPUs with similar average scores. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile, 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M, 0.5% behind the GTX 670M, and 1.1% behind the Intel UHD Graphics P750. The R7 M350, meanwhile, is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (0.0% delta), and is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K620. It also sits 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, though these higher-end parts likely have different benchmark profiles. The Quadro M5000M's percentile rank of 37 is only one point higher than the R7 M350's 36, indicating that despite the massive head-to-head wins, the overall competitive positioning is closer when considering the entire GPU landscape.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the superior performer in every measured head-to-head test, with a 227.9% lead in OpenCL and a 339.3% lead in Vulkan. Its architectural advantages—four times the shading units, four times the TMUs, eight times the ROPs, and ten times the memory bandwidth—are overwhelming. For any workload that leverages these resources, the Quadro M5000M is the definitive choice.

The Radeon R7 M350, by contrast, is a much less capable part. Its 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, combined with a 64-bit memory bus and DDR3 memory, place it in a fundamentally lower tier. Its average benchmark score of 6327 is only 2.4% below the Quadro M5000M's 6481, but this is misleading; the head-to-head tests show a chasm between them. The R7 M350's nearest rivals include professional and consumer parts like the Radeon Pro WX 4100 and Quadro K620, suggesting it is competitive with entry-level workstation GPUs, not high-end ones.

Who should pick which? Based strictly on the data, any application requiring maximum compute throughput, high memory bandwidth, or advanced API support (Vulkan 1.4 vs. 1.2.170, DirectX 12_1 vs. 12_0) should use the Quadro M5000M. It is the only logical choice for demanding professional workloads. The R7 M350 would only be suitable for scenarios where its lower resource footprint and simpler memory subsystem are sufficient, and even then, its performance ceiling is far lower. The Quadro M5000M wins 2-0 in head-to-head tests, and the verdict is equally one-sided.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M | AMD Radeon R7 M350 |

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

| Chip | GM204 | Meso |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 962 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1051 MHz | 1015 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 384 |

| TMUs | 96 | 24 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 67.26 GPixel/s | 8.120 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 100.9 GTexel/s | 24.36 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.229 TFLOPS | 779.5 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Not listed |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Not listed |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2015-05-04 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | Solar System |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | Polaris Mobile |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |