AMD Radeon R7 M380 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and AMD Radeon R7 M380 represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by nearly two years of product cycles. The data available shows a single direct head-to-head benchmark, but the underlying specifications and architecture reveal a deeper story about performance class and design priorities. This analysis examines the raw numbers, the architectural philosophies, and what the benchmark results imply for real-world use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 M380 scores 9,313 points. This translates to a 26.4% advantage for the Quadro K5100M, a significant margin that places the two GPUs in different performance tiers.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro K5100M's average benchmark score of 10,043 puts it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M, which scores 10,013 (a 0.3% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959 (0.8% delta). The Quadro K5100M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 8,315, which is not directly comparable to the Radeon's data but shows its compute capability across different APIs.

The AMD Radeon R7 M380, with an average score of 9,313, sits at the 46th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M at 9,302 (0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 at 9,294 (0.2% delta). The R7 M380's score is remarkably close to these rivals, suggesting it is a solid mid-range performer, but it clearly trails the Quadro K5100M by a substantial amount.

The 26.4% delta in OpenCL is not a marginal difference; it represents a fundamental gap in compute throughput. The Quadro K5100M wins the only head-to-head test, and the specification sheet explains why. The R7 M380's score is competitive with its immediate rivals, but the Quadro K5100M operates in a higher class altogether.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a large, complex die measuring 294 mm² and containing 3,540 million transistors. The transistor density works out to 12.0M per mm², a figure that reflects the design philosophy of the era: more silicon, more cores, more raw compute.

The AMD Radeon R7 M380 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. However, the die is substantially smaller at 123 mm², with 1,500 million transistors. The transistor density is nearly identical at 12.2M per mm², but the total transistor count is less than half of the Quadro's. This immediately signals a different performance envelope.

The compute resources diverge dramatically. The Quadro K5100M has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operating units (ROPs). The R7 M380 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro has more than double the shading units and triple the TMUs, which directly translates to higher theoretical throughput.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The R7 M380 runs at a base clock of 900 MHz with a boost of 915 MHz, while the Quadro K5100M runs at a flat 771 MHz for both base and boost. Despite the lower clock, the Quadro's massive core count overwhelms the Radeon's higher frequency. The pixel rate for the Quadro is 24.67 GPixel/s versus 14.64 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and the texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s versus 36.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 2.369 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 1,171.2 GFLOPS (or 1.171 TFLOPS) for the Radeon—a 2x advantage for NVIDIA.

Memory architecture reinforces the gap. The Quadro K5100M features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M380 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 32.00 GB/s. The Quadro's memory bandwidth is 3.6x higher, a critical factor for compute-heavy workloads that repeatedly access large datasets. The memory clock also differs: the Quadro runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) while the Radeon runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), but the bus width difference is the dominant factor.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins the only direct benchmark, and its specification sheet suggests it dominates in compute-intensive tasks. The 2x advantage in FP32 throughput, combined with 3.6x the memory bandwidth, makes it suitable for workloads like GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, and large dataset processing. The 8 GB frame buffer also allows it to handle larger textures and models without swapping to system memory, a clear advantage for professional 3D applications.

The AMD Radeon R7 M380, despite losing the head-to-head, is not without merit. Its higher clock speed of 915 MHz boost versus 771 MHz could offer better performance in latency-bound scenarios where core count matters less. The GCN architecture was known for its compute capabilities in certain workloads, and the smaller die size means lower power consumption, although the TDP is not specified in the data. The R7 M380's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M, scores nearly identically (9,302 versus 9,313), suggesting it is a competent mid-range option for less demanding tasks.

The Quadro K5100M's wins are clear in raw compute and memory throughput. The R7 M380's wins are less evident in the benchmark data; it simply has no test where it beats the Quadro. However, its lower transistor count and smaller die suggest it could be more efficient in constrained thermal envelopes, though no power data is available to confirm this. The R7 M380 also supports a slightly newer DirectX version (12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)), which could matter for certain modern game titles, but the OpenCL gap remains the primary metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has an average benchmark score of 10,043, while the AMD Radeon R7 M380 has an average score of 9,313. The Quadro also holds a 26.4% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head test.

Q: How do the memory specifications compare?

A: The Quadro K5100M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M380 uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth, giving the Quadro a 3.6x bandwidth advantage.

Q: What are the core counts for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R7 M380 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, meaning the Quadro has over double the shading units and triple the TMUs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M380 has a higher boost clock at 915 MHz, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M's 771 MHz. However, the Quadro compensates with a much larger core count and higher memory bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both GPUs are marked as end-of-life. The Quadro K5100M was released on July 22, 2013, and the R7 M380 was released on May 4, 2015.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare?

A: The Quadro K5100M's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375 with a 0.3% delta, while the R7 M380's closest is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M with a 0.1% delta. Both GPUs sit near the 46-48th percentile of all GPUs.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is identical at 28 nm from TSMC, but the die size diverges sharply: 294 mm² for the Quadro versus 123 mm² for the Radeon. Transistor counts are 3,540 million versus 1,500 million, with transistor densities nearly equal at 12.0M and 12.2M per mm². The Quadro uses a GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, while the Radeon uses a Tropo chip with GCN 1.0.

Clock speeds: the Quadro runs at 771 MHz base and boost, while the Radeon runs at 900 MHz base and 915 MHz boost. Memory configurations are entirely different: the Quadro has 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 3.6 Gbps effective, while the Radeon has 4 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 2 Gbps effective. Bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s.

Compute resources: shading units are 1,536 versus 640, TMUs are 128 versus 40, and ROPs are 32 versus 16. Pixel rate is 24.67 GPixel/s versus 14.64 GPixel/s, texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s versus 36.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 2.369 TFLOPS versus 1,171.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM module slot, while the Radeon's TDP and slot width are not specified. The Quadro uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Quadro's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the Radeon's are not specified. DirectX support is 12 (11_0) for the Quadro and 12 (11_1) for the Radeon, with OpenGL 4.6 for both and Vulkan 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the superior performer in the only head-to-head benchmark available, winning with a 26.4% margin in OpenCL. Its architecture, with more than double the shading units and triple the TMUs, provides a compute advantage that the Radeon's higher clock speed cannot overcome. The 8 GB GDDR5 memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth is in a different class from the 4 GB DDR3 with 32.00 GB/s, making the Quadro the clear choice for memory-intensive professional workloads.

The Radeon R7 M380 is not a weak GPU; its average score of 9,313 places it just 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8. It is a competent mid-range option for casual gaming or light compute tasks, and its smaller die size (123 mm² versus 294 mm²) suggests it could fit into thinner, lower-power laptops. However, the data shows it cannot match the Quadro's compute throughput or memory bandwidth.

Who should pick the Quadro K5100M? Anyone running GPU-accelerated applications that rely on OpenCL or Metal performance, where the 26.4% benchmark lead and 2x FP32 advantage will translate into faster render times, smoother simulation, and better handling of large datasets. The 8 GB memory is also a practical benefit for modern workloads that exceed 4 GB.

Who should pick the Radeon R7 M380? Users who prioritize a more compact, potentially more power-efficient solution without needing top-tier compute performance. Its higher boost clock of 915 MHz and slightly newer DirectX support (12 (11_1)) make it a reasonable choice for light gaming or general-purpose graphics, and its closest rival parity with the GTX 850M indicates it handles mainstream tasks adequately. For pure performance, the Quadro K5100M wins decisively; for a smaller footprint, the R7 M380 has its place.