AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 across every shared benchmark. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 against the AMD Radeon R7 M365X's 5,939, a lead of 238.9%. That is not a marginal gap; it represents more than three times the raw compute output in a general-purpose workload. The Vulkan results are even more lopsided. The Quadro P2000 posts 23,566, while the Radeon R7 M365X manages only 4,893, a delta of 381.6%. In practical terms, the NVIDIA part delivers nearly five times the Vulkan performance of the AMD part.

These two tests are the only head-to-head comparisons available in the database, and the Quadro P2000 wins both. The win count stands at 2 for NVIDIA, 0 for AMD. The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy: the Quadro P2000 sits at 6,049, while the Radeon R7 M365X averages 5,416. That difference of roughly 11.7% in aggregate scoring is modest compared to the individual test deltas, which suggests the Geekbench results are outliers in favor of the NVIDIA card, but the direction of the comparison is unambiguous.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the Quadro P2000 lands in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R7 M365X sits at the 32nd percentile. The gap is small in percentile terms, but the benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The Quadro P2000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6,077 (a 0.5% deficit) and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 (a 0.5% surplus). The Radeon R7 M365X, by contrast, competes with the AMD Radeon 610M at 5,444 (0.5% ahead) and the Intel UHD Graphics P630 at 5,370 (0.9% behind). In other words, the Quadro P2000 is trading blows with modern entry-level discrete GPUs, while the Radeon R7 M365X is aligned with integrated graphics solutions.

The Geekbench OpenCL score of 20,125 for the Quadro P2000 is particularly telling. It exceeds the card's own average benchmark score by more than a factor of three, indicating that OpenCL compute is a strength for this architecture. The Radeon R7 M365X's OpenCL score of 5,939 is closer to its overall average, suggesting a more balanced but lower-performing profile. For Vulkan, the Quadro P2000's 23,566 is again far above its average, while the Radeon's 4,893 is below its average. This pattern highlights that the Quadro P2000 excels in modern API workloads, whereas the Radeon R7 M365X struggles to keep pace even in its better-scoring test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated by TSMC at a 16 nm process node. The die size is 200 mm², containing 4,400 million transistors, which yields a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X, on the other hand, uses the Litho chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, also from TSMC but at a 28 nm process node. Its die is 77 mm² with 950 million transistors, resulting in a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The process advantage is clear: the newer 16 nm node allows the NVIDIA part to pack more than four times the transistors into roughly 2.6 times the die area.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 raster operation units. The Radeon R7 M365X offers 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. That translates to a peak FP32 throughput of 3.031 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card versus 633.6 GFLOPS for the AMD card, a factor of roughly 4.8. Pixel fill rate tells a similar story: the Quadro P2000 reaches 59.20 GPixel/s, while the Radeon manages 6.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s for NVIDIA and 19.80 GTexel/s for AMD.

Memory configurations are also generations apart. The Quadro P2000 ships with 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M365X has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, capped at 64.00 GB/s. The memory clock for the NVIDIA part is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the AMD part runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The capacity difference alone is stark, but the bandwidth deficit compounds it.

The feature sets reflect their respective eras. The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon R7 M365X lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card also provides FP16 compute at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a figure the AMD card does not report. Both cards are end-of-life products, but the release dates differ by nearly two years: the Quadro P2000 arrived in February 2017, while the Radeon R7 M365X launched in May 2015.

The Quadro P2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, drawing a 75 W TDP and requiring a 250 W power supply. The AMD card does not list TDP, slot width, power connectors, or PSU requirements in the database. The NVIDIA card uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and has no listed display outputs. The physical dimensions also favor the NVIDIA part, which is 196 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the Radeon's dimensions are unspecified.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 averages 6,049 across all recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X averages 5,416. The Quadro P2000 also ranks at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, three points above the Radeon's 32nd percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan workloads?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 23,566 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 4,893 for the Radeon R7 M365X. That is a 381.6% lead for the NVIDIA card, the largest delta recorded in any head-to-head test between the two.

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

A: No. The database records two head-to-head benchmarks, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins both. The win count is 2 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M365X has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The Quadro P2000 is built on TSMC's 16 nm process, while the Radeon R7 M365X uses TSMC's 28 nm process. The Quadro P2000 achieves a transistor density of 22.0 million per mm², versus 12.3 million per mm² for the AMD part.

Q: What API levels does each card support?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon R7 M365X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | AMD Radeon R7 M365X |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.0M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1076 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1480 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 140.2 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 40 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.20 GPixel/s | 6.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 94.72 GTexel/s | 19.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.031 TFLOPS | 633.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not listed |

| TDP | 75 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not listed |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Not listed |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 196 mm x 111 mm | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2017-02-05 | 2015-05-04 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | Solar System |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | Polaris Mobile |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins in every measurable category where both cards have recorded data. Its strengths are most pronounced in compute-heavy and modern API workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 20,125 and Vulkan score of 23,566 indicate that the Pascal architecture handles parallel workloads efficiently, making it suitable for tasks like rendering, simulation, and GPU-accelerated compute. The 5 GB memory capacity and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth provide ample headroom for larger datasets and higher-resolution textures, while the 160-bit bus width supports sustained throughput. The 75 W TDP with no external power connectors means the card can fit into systems with modest power budgets. The single-slot form factor and four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it a practical choice for multi-display professional setups.

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X has no benchmark victories in the recorded data, but its profile suggests specific niches. Its lower average score of 5,416 places it in the same performance class as integrated graphics, which indicates it could serve as a basic display adapter in legacy systems. The 1 GB memory and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for light 2D workloads or older applications that do not demand significant GPU resources. The GCN 1.0 architecture, despite its age, supports OpenGL 4.6, which keeps it functional for certain compatibility scenarios. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface reduces lane requirements, potentially allowing it to operate in systems with limited PCIe connectivity. The smaller die size and lower transistor count also suggest lower manufacturing complexity, though no power figures are recorded to confirm efficiency advantages.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The Quadro P2000 is the choice for any workload that leverages modern APIs, high-resolution textures, or compute acceleration. The Radeon R7 M365X, lacking any recorded benchmark wins, is better characterized as a fallback option for systems where the Quadro P2000's power requirements, physical dimensions, or bus interface are incompatible. The data does not support any scenario where the AMD card outperforms the NVIDIA card in raw performance, but its existence in the database serves as a baseline for how far GPU technology advanced between 2015 and 2017.