AMD Radeon R7 M380 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and AMD Radeon R7 M380 represent two very different approaches to GPU design from the same 28 nm TSMC fabrication process, yet they land in nearly the same performance percentile. The K5000 is a workstation-class card from 2012 built on the Kepler architecture with a 3,540 million transistor count and a 294 mm² die, while the R7 M380 is a mobile-oriented chip from 2015 using the GCN 1.0 architecture with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Both sit at the 46th percentile among all GPUs, but their average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story: the K5000 averages 9,637 points across three tests, while the M380 averages 9,313 from a single test. This gap of roughly 3.5% in average score is small enough to raise questions about what each GPU is actually optimized for, and the data suggests the answer lies in their architectural priorities rather than raw compute capacity.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 has an average benchmark score of 9,637 across three tests (geekbench_metal, geekbench_opencl, and geekbench_vulkan), while the AMD Radeon R7 M380 has an average of 9,313 from a single geekbench_opencl test. This gives the K5000 a 3.5% lead in average score.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the only head-to-head benchmark available?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 versus the AMD Radeon R7 M380's 9,313, resulting in a 22.6% win for the K5000. This is the only shared benchmark in the data, and it shows a decisive advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU according to average score?

A: The Quadro K5000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M with an average score of 9,645, which is 0.1% higher. The R7 M380's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M with an average score of 9,302, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD card.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but they differ on Vulkan: the Quadro K5000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R7 M380 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX versions also differ slightly, with the K5000 at 12 (11_0) and the M380 at 12 (11_1).

Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?

A: Both have 4 GB of memory, but the types and bandwidths differ significantly. The Quadro K5000 uses GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M380 uses DDR3 with a 128-bit bus and only 32.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The Quadro K5000 delivers 22.59 GPixel/s and 90.37 GTexel/s, while the R7 M380 delivers 14.64 GPixel/s and 36.60 GTexel/s. The K5000 leads by 54% in pixel rate and 147% in texture rate.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial and explains most of their performance divergence. The Quadro K5000 uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, built on the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The R7 M380 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, based on the Tropo chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a slightly higher transistor density of 12.2M per mm². Despite the density similarity, the K5000 has more than twice the transistor count and die area, which translates into a much larger compute footprint.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The K5000 packs 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the M380 has only 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 2.4x advantage in shading units and 3.2x advantage in TMUs gives the K5000 a theoretical FP32 throughput of 2.169 TFLOPS versus the M380's 1,171.2 GFLOPS (approximately 1.17 TFLOPS). The K5000's pixel rate of 22.59 GPixel/s and texture rate of 90.37 GTexel/s dwarf the M380's 14.64 GPixel/s and 36.60 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The M380 runs at a base clock of 900 MHz with a boost of 915 MHz, while the K5000 is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. This 29% clock advantage for the AMD chip partially compensates for its smaller architecture, but not enough to close the gap in raw throughput. The memory subsystems are equally divergent: the K5000 uses GDDR5 at 1350 MHz with a 256-bit bus for 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the M380 uses DDR3 at 1000 MHz with a 128-bit bus for just 32.00 GB/s — a 5.4x bandwidth disadvantage for the AMD card.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a clear split in use cases. The Quadro K5000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark (geekbench_opencl) by 22.6%, and its architectural advantages in shading units, texture units, and memory bandwidth suggest it is better suited for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, scientific simulation, and professional content creation. Its Geekbench Metal score of 6,324 and Vulkan score of 11,169 indicate strong cross-API performance, which is typical of a workstation card designed to handle diverse professional workloads.

The R7 M380, despite losing the direct comparison, has strengths that the benchmark scores don't fully capture. Its higher clock speed (915 MHz boost versus 706 MHz) and smaller die size suggest better power efficiency per transistor, though the fact pack does not provide TDP data for the AMD card to confirm this. The M380 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K5000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16 — a potential advantage in systems with newer motherboards where bandwidth to the CPU matters. For lighter workloads like basic 3D acceleration, media playback, or older games, the M380's higher clocks and newer architecture (GCN 1.0 versus Kepler) could make it more responsive in latency-sensitive scenarios, even if its sustained throughput is lower.

Specification Differences

The specification table highlights where these two GPUs diverge most sharply. The K5000 uses GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the M380 uses DDR3 with a 128-bit bus and 32.00 GB/s bandwidth — a 5.4x difference in memory bandwidth. The K5000 has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the M380's 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. FP32 performance is 2.169 TFLOPS for the K5000 versus 1,171.2 GFLOPS for the M380. Pixel rate is 22.59 GPixel/s versus 14.64 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 90.37 GTexel/s versus 36.60 GTexel/s.

Clocks differ in the AMD card's favor: the M380 runs at 900 MHz base and 915 MHz boost, while the K5000 is fixed at 706 MHz for both. The K5000 has a TDP of 122 W, requires a 300 W suggested PSU, uses a dual-slot design with a 6-pin power connector, and measures 267 mm in length (10.5 inches). The M380 has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, or dimensions, reflecting its mobile-oriented design. The K5000 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the M380 has no listed display outputs. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the K5000 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the M380.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark in the fact pack is geekbench_opencl, where the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 against the AMD Radeon R7 M380's 9,313. This translates to a 22.6% delta in favor of the K5000, which is a decisive margin. The K5000's closest rival in the overall benchmarks — the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M — averages 9,645, which is only 0.1% higher than the K5000's 9,637, placing the Quadro card in a tight cluster of mid-range GPUs. The M380's closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M, averages 9,302, just 0.1% below the M380's 9,313.

Looking at the K5000's benchmark suite, its OpenCL score of 11,418 is its highest, followed by Vulkan at 11,169 and Metal at 6,324. The Metal score is notably lower, suggesting the K5000 is less optimized for Apple's Metal API, but its OpenCL and Vulkan results are strong. The M380 has only one benchmark score (OpenCL at 9,313), which limits direct comparison across APIs, but that single score is 22.6% below the K5000's OpenCL result. The K5000's average of 9,637 across three tests versus the M380's 9,313 from one test means the K5000 leads in average score by 3.5%, but the head-to-head OpenCL gap is much larger, indicating that the K5000's advantage is more pronounced in compute-heavy workloads.

The Verdict

The data makes a straightforward case: the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is the stronger GPU by virtually every measurable metric. It wins the only direct benchmark by 22.6%, has 2.4x more shading units, 3.2x more texture units, 5.4x more memory bandwidth, and delivers 2.169 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 1,171.2 GFLOPS for the R7 M380. Its higher average benchmark score of 9,637 versus 9,313 confirms that the K5000 is the better performer across the board, even though both GPUs sit at the same 46th percentile. For buyers who need OpenCL or Vulkan compute performance, a workstation-class GPU like the K5000 is the clear choice, especially given its 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

However, the R7 M380 is not without merit. Its higher clock speeds (915 MHz boost versus 706 MHz) and PCIe 3.0 support make it a more modern design that could be more efficient in mobile or embedded systems where power consumption and size matter — though the fact pack does not provide TDP data for the M380 to confirm this. Its smaller die (123 mm² versus 294 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,500 million versus 3,540 million) suggest it is a more cost-effective chip to produce, but the lack of launch MSRP data for the M380 prevents any direct value comparison. For users who prioritize raw compute capability, professional-grade reliability, and memory bandwidth, the Quadro K5000 is the data-backed winner. For users who need a compact, modern GPU for light workloads and have a PCIe 3.0 system, the R7 M380 offers a viable alternative, but the benchmark evidence clearly favors the NVIDIA card in almost every scenario where performance matters.