AMD Radeon R7 M370 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 has a higher average benchmark score of 6764, compared to 6049 for the NVIDIA Quadro P2000. This places the R7 M370 at the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P2000 sits at the 35th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro P2000 dominates, scoring 20125 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 7063 for the R7 M370. That is a delta of -64.9% from the Quadro's perspective, meaning the R7 M370 trails by nearly two-thirds.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan compute workloads?

A: The Quadro P2000 again wins decisively, posting a Geekbench Vulkan score of 23566 against 6465 for the R7 M370. The delta is -72.6%, the largest margin in the head-to-head data.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU in the database?

A: The R7 M370's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro M5100 with an average score of 6830, a -1% delta. The Quadro P2000's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077, a -0.5% delta.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and a wider bus?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus, while the R7 M370 has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is 140.2 GB/s for the Quadro versus 57.60 GB/s for the Radeon.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The Quadro P2000's GP106 chip packs 22.0 million transistors per square millimeter, while the R7 M370's Litho chip achieves 12.3 million per square millimeter. This reflects the newer 16 nm process versus 28 nm.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R7 M370 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using a chip codenamed Litho, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 77 mm² and contains 950 million transistors. This is an older design, released in May 2015 as part of the Gem System (R7 M300) generation, with a predecessor in the Solar System family and a successor in Polaris Mobile. The GPU supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 uses the Pascal architecture with a GP106 chip, built on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. The die is substantially larger at 200 mm² and packs 4,400 million transistors. It was released in February 2017 as part of the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation, succeeding Quadro Maxwell and preceding Quadro Volta. API support includes DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The process node jump from 28 nm to 16 nm is the single biggest architectural differentiator. It allows the GP106 to achieve nearly double the transistor density: 22.0M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm². The Quadro also has a much larger allocation of execution resources: 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units. The R7 M370 counters with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Clock speeds favor the Quadro as well. The base clock is 1076 MHz with a boost of 1480 MHz, while the R7 M370 runs at 875 MHz base and 960 MHz boost. The memory clock is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the Quadro versus 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) for the Radeon.

The bus interface differs too: the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R7 M370 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro also lists 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the R7 M370 has no display output information recorded. The Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the R7 M370 has no TDP or slot width data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains only two benchmark comparisons, and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins both outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 20125 against 7063 for the R7 M370, a delta of -64.9% relative to the Quadro. This is a massive gap, roughly three times the Radeon's output.

The Vulkan test shows an even wider divide. The Quadro P2000 posts 23566, while the R7 M370 manages 6465, resulting in a -72.6% delta. This means the Radeon delivers less than a third of the Quadro's Vulkan compute performance.

The wins tally reflects this: the Quadro claims 2 wins, the R7 M370 has 0. The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story, however. The R7 M370's average of 6764 is higher than the Quadro's 6049, which seems contradictory given the head-to-head results. The explanation lies in the benchmark set: the Quadro has nine recorded benchmarks, including several Passmark tests with low scores (DirectX 10 at 34, DirectX 11 at 47, DirectX 12 at 28), which drag down its average. The R7 M370 has only two benchmarks, both Geekbench tests where it scores in the 6000-7000 range.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The R7 M370's closest competitor, the AMD FirePro M5100, averages 6830, just 1% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 sits 1% below at 6698, and the AMD Radeon R7 M460 is 2.3% behind at 6612. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M is 2.6% ahead at 6946. These deltas are all small, indicating the R7 M370 sits in a tightly packed performance cluster.

The Quadro P2000's rivals show similar clustering. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 averages 6077 (-0.5%), the NVIDIA RTX A400 averages 6078 (-0.5%), the AMD Radeon 760M averages 6019 (+0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 averages 6001 (+0.8%). The Quadro's average sits in the middle of this group.

The percentile rankings reinforce the picture. The R7 M370 at the 38th percentile is slightly above the Quadro at the 35th percentile, but both are firmly in the lower-middle range of the database. Neither card is a top performer by overall standings.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous in raw compute performance: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the far stronger GPU. In OpenCL, it outperforms the R7 M370 by 64.9%; in Vulkan, by 72.6%. For any workload that relies on compute shaders, OpenCL, or Vulkan, the Quadro is the clear choice.

The Quadro's architectural advantages support this. Its 16 nm process, 4,400 million transistors, and 1024 shading units provide a hardware foundation that the 28 nm, 950 million transistor R7 M370 cannot match. The memory subsystem is also decisively better: 5 GB versus 2 GB, 160-bit versus 128-bit bus, and 140.2 GB/s versus 57.60 GB/s bandwidth.

However, the average benchmark score complicates the narrative. The R7 M370's 6764 average exceeds the Quadro's 6049, and its 38th percentile ranking is above the Quadro's 35th. This is because the Quadro's benchmark portfolio includes several low-scoring Passmark tests, particularly the DirectX 9 test at 124 and the G2D test at 626. The R7 M370 has a narrower, more favorable benchmark set.

For users who prioritize compute performance, especially in professional or OpenCL/Vulkan-heavy applications, the Quadro P2000 is the superior option. Its 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 59.20 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 94.72 GTexel/s texture rate are multiples of the R7 M370's 737.3 GFLOPS, 7.680 GPixel/s, and 23.04 GTexel/s.

For users who rely on the average benchmark score as a general indicator, the R7 M370 appears better positioned, though the margin over the Quadro is only 11.8%. The R7 M370 also has a higher percentile rank, but this reflects its position among all GPUs, not its direct comparison with the Quadro.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, so neither is a future-proof investment. The Quadro offers professional features like 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and a single-slot form factor with no power connectors, which may matter for workstation builds. The R7 M370 has no recorded display outputs or physical dimensions.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the Quadro P2000 for compute-heavy tasks and modern API support. Pick the R7 M370 only if the average benchmark score or percentile ranking is the primary metric, or if the lower memory footprint is acceptable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M370 | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 950 million | 4,400 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 200 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 875 MHz | 1076 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 960 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 57.60 GB/s | 140.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 24 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.680 GPixel/s | 59.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.04 GTexel/s | 94.72 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 737.3 GFLOPS | 3.031 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not recorded | 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | Not recorded | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

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

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

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