AMD Radeon R7 M370 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M370 and NVIDIA Quadro M5000M occupy very different tiers of the mobile GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects a decisive performance gap. The R7 M370, built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, is a modest entry-level part, while the Quadro M5000M is a professional-grade workstation GPU based on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 design. Across the two head-to-head benchmarks available, the Quadro M5000M wins both, but the R7 M370 holds its own in specific legacy or lightweight workloads. The data shows a clear hierarchy, yet the story is more nuanced than raw scores alone, as the two cards target different use cases, form factors, and API support levels.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M370 and Quadro M5000M do not compete on equal footing, and the benchmark results make that obvious. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 M370 scores 7063, while the Quadro M5000M reaches 22920, a delta of -69.2% for the AMD card. Similarly, in Geekbench Vulkan, the R7 M370 scores 6465 versus the Quadro’s 24875, a -74% gap. The Quadro M5000M wins both direct comparisons, meaning it is the clear choice for any compute-heavy or modern graphics API workload.

However, the R7 M370 is not without its niches. Its average benchmark score of 6764 places it in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M5000M’s average of 6481 sits at the 37th percentile. This counterintuitive result—where the slower-sounding card has a higher percentile—stems from the fact that the Quadro’s average includes its very low Passmark DirectX scores (e.g., 29 for DirectX 12, 35 for DirectX 10), which drag its mean down. The R7 M370, lacking those legacy tests, benefits from a cleaner average. Thus, in aggregate benchmark terms, the R7 M370 appears more consistent, but that is an artifact of test coverage, not real-world parity.

For users running older DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 applications, the data hints at a different story. The Quadro M5000M scores 119 in Passmark DirectX 9 and 35 in DirectX 10, which, while low in absolute terms, are part of its benchmark suite. The R7 M370 has no equivalent Passmark entries in the fact pack, so no direct comparison is possible. The R7 M370’s wins, if any, would be in scenarios where its lower power demands (no TDP listed) and simpler architecture (950 million transistors) make it a lighter, more portable option, though the data does not quantify this directly.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by more than just performance tier. The R7 M370 uses the Litho chip on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0, also 28 nm at TSMC, but packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. This is a 5.5x difference in transistor count and a 5.2x difference in die size, which explains the massive performance gap in raw compute.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The R7 M370 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 57.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M5000M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth—nearly three times the bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the R7 M370 runs at 875 MHz base and 960 MHz boost, while the Quadro M5000M runs at 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost. The Quadro’s higher clocks, combined with its wider memory bus, create a substantial throughput advantage.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The R7 M370 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro M5000M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs—exactly four times the shading units and TMUs, and eight times the ROPs. Pixel rate is 7.680 GPixel/s for the R7 M370 versus 67.26 GPixel/s for the Quadro, a 8.8x difference. Texture rate is 23.04 GTexel/s versus 100.9 GTexel/s, a 4.4x gap. FP32 performance is 737.3 GFLOPS versus 3.229 TFLOPS, making the Quadro roughly 4.4x faster in single-precision compute.

API support also differs. The R7 M370 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 11_1) and newer Vulkan version give the Quadro an edge in modern workloads. The R7 M370 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, while the Quadro M5000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, reflecting its mobile workstation design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 M370 scores 7063, and the Quadro M5000M scores 22920. The delta is -69.2%, meaning the AMD card delivers less than a third of the NVIDIA card’s performance in this compute test. That is a massive margin, driven by the Quadro’s 4x shading units, higher clocks, and 2.8x memory bandwidth. OpenCL workloads—such as physics simulation, video encoding, or general-purpose GPU compute—will favor the Quadro overwhelmingly.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is even wider. The R7 M370 scores 6465, while the Quadro M5000M scores 24875, a -74% delta. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that scales with raw hardware resources, and the Quadro’s superior shader count and memory bandwidth shine here. The R7 M370’s Vulkan score is actually lower than its OpenCL score (6465 vs 7063), suggesting that GCN 1.0’s Vulkan driver implementation is less efficient, while the Quadro’s Vulkan score (24875) is higher than its OpenCL (22920), indicating better optimization on Maxwell 2.0.

The Quadro M5000M’s Passmark scores provide additional context, though no R7 M370 equivalents exist. Its DirectX 9 score of 119 and DirectX 11 score of 54 are low in absolute terms, but they reflect the mobile workstation’s focus on professional OpenGL and compute rather than gaming. The DirectX 12 score of 29 is particularly weak, suggesting that the Quadro’s driver is not optimized for gaming-centric DX12 titles. The R7 M370, with its DirectX 12 (11_1) support, might actually be more compatible with certain older DX12 games, though the fact pack does not include a direct Passmark comparison.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the R7 M370’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro M5100, which scores 6830 on average, just 1% below the R7 M370’s 6764 average. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 is 1% ahead, and the AMD Radeon R7 M460 is 2.3% ahead. The Quadro M5000M’s rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (0.1% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (0.2% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (0.5% behind). This shows that the R7 M370 is competitive within its low-end class, while the Quadro M5000M is similarly competitive within its mid-range class, despite the huge absolute performance difference.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 has an average benchmark score of 6764, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M averages 6481. However, this is skewed by the Quadro’s low Passmark DirectX scores, which pull its average down.

Q: Why does the Quadro M5000M have a lower percentile despite higher raw performance?

A: The Quadro M5000M sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M370 is at the 38th percentile. The Quadro’s average is dragged down by its Passmark DirectX 10 score of 35, DirectX 11 score of 54, and DirectX 12 score of 29, which are not part of the R7 M370’s benchmark suite.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The R7 M370 has 57.60 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5. The Quadro M5000M has 160.4 GB/s on a 256-bit bus with 8 GB GDDR5, which is 2.8x higher.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R7 M370 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro’s newer Vulkan version contributes to its higher Vulkan benchmark score.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The R7 M370 has 384 shading units, while the Quadro M5000M has 1536—exactly four times as many. The Quadro also has 96 TMUs versus 24, and 64 ROPs versus 8.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both are listed as end-of-life. The R7 M370 was released on 2015-05-04, and the Quadro M5000M was released on 2015-08-17.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the superior performer in every head-to-head benchmark. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 69.2% and Geekbench Vulkan by 74%. Its 1536 shading units, 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 3.229 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it a serious compute and professional graphics tool. The R7 M370, with 384 shading units, 2 GB memory, and 737.3 GFLOPS, is not in the same league.

However, the R7 M370 has a niche. Its higher average benchmark score (6764 vs 6481) and higher percentile (38th vs 37th) suggest that, in the absence of DirectX 9/10/11/12 Passmark tests, it offers more consistent performance across the benchmarks it does run. Its lower transistor count (950 million vs 5,200 million) and smaller die (77 mm² vs 398 mm²) imply lower power consumption, though no TDP is listed for the R7 M370. For users running lightweight OpenCL or Vulkan tasks on a portable system, the R7 M370 might suffice, but for any serious workstation workload, the Quadro M5000M is the only rational choice.

The Quadro M5000M’s weak Passmark DirectX scores (29 for DX12, 35 for DX10, 54 for DX11) reveal that it is not optimized for gaming, but that is irrelevant for its intended professional market. Its Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level make it future-proof for modern APIs, while the R7 M370’s older GCN 1.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (11_1) limit its lifespan. If the task requires raw compute, memory capacity, or modern API compliance, pick the Quadro M5000M. If the task is light compute on a small, low-power mobile platform, the R7 M370 is adequate—but the data does not support any scenario where it outperforms the Quadro.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon R7 M370 | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M |

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

| Chip | Litho | GM204 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Transistors | 950 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Base Clock | 875 MHz | 962 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 960 MHz | 1051 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 57.60 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 24 | 96 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.680 GPixel/s | 67.26 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.04 GTexel/s | 100.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 737.3 GFLOPS | 3.229 TFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | MXM Module |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

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