AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs AMD Radeon R9 M375 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the database's recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available. It scores 10,457 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the R9 M265X's 8,851, a difference of 18.1%.

Q: How do these two GPUs compare in overall performance percentiles?

A: The R9 M375 sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M265X sits at the 44th percentile. The M375's average benchmark score is 10,070, whereas the M265X's average is 8,851.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the R9 M375 according to the database?

A: The nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (average score 10,043, which is 0.3% behind) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (average score 10,013, 0.6% behind). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959) is 1.1% behind, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273) is 2% ahead.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the R9 M265X?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (average score 8,863) is 0.1% ahead, the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918) is 0.8% ahead, and both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743) are 1.2% behind.

Q: Do both GPUs share the same memory bus width?

A: Yes. Both the R9 M375 and the R9 M265X use a 128-bit memory bus interface. However, the memory type and clock speeds differ, which affects bandwidth.

Q: What is the production status of these two GPUs?

A: Both are listed as end-of-life products. The R9 M375 was released on May 4, 2015, while the R9 M265X was released earlier, on March 20, 2014.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear decision for most use cases: the AMD Radeon R9 M375 is the superior part. Its 18.1% lead in the recorded OpenCL benchmark is substantial, and it also holds a higher position in the overall GPU percentile ranking (48th versus 44th). For any workload that leverages OpenCL compute, the M375 is the stronger choice.

The R9 M265X is not without its merits, but they are narrow. It uses faster GDDR5 memory, which gives it a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s compared to the M375's 28.80 GB/s. This could matter for specific memory-bound tasks. However, the M265X's much lower core clocks (575 MHz base, 625 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz base, 1015 MHz boost) and its resulting lower compute throughput (800.0 GFLOPS FP32 versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS FP32) make it a weaker overall performer.

Users who already own a system with the R9 M265X and are looking at the recorded data will see that the M375 offers a meaningful upgrade path in compute performance. Users considering a new purchase should choose the M375 if raw compute throughput is the priority. The M265X is only preferable in the narrow scenario where the higher memory bandwidth is more critical than compute rates, and even then, the M375's other advantages make it difficult to recommend the older part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. This measurement shows the AMD Radeon R9 M375 scoring 10,457 against the AMD Radeon R9 M265X's 8,851. This represents an 18.1% advantage for the M375.

This result aligns with the theoretical specifications. The M375's shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are identical in count to the M265X, but the M375 operates at much higher frequencies. The M375's boost clock is 1015 MHz versus 625 MHz on the M265X. Consequently, the M375 achieves a pixel rate of 16.24 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 40.60 GTexel/s, while the M265X manages 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s respectively.

The FP32 compute rate tells the same story. The M375 delivers 1,299.2 GFLOPS, which is 62.4% higher than the M265X's 800.0 GFLOPS. The OpenCL score difference of 18.1% is lower than the raw compute difference, which suggests that other factors, such as memory bandwidth, partially offset the core clock advantage. The M265X's memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s is more than double the M375's 28.80 GB/s, which likely allows the older GPU to feed its cores more efficiently in certain memory-heavy workloads, though not enough to overcome the M375's overall compute lead.

In the broader context of the database, the M375's average benchmark score of 10,070 places it in the 48th percentile. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, scores 10,043, which is only 0.3% behind. The M265X, with an average score of 8,851, sits at the 44th percentile. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, scores 8,863, a mere 0.1% ahead. This shows that while the M375 competes in a slightly higher performance tier, the M265X is competitive within its own tier, trading places with the WX 5100 and the Radeon 550X.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share a foundational specification set but diverge significantly in clocks and memory. Both are built by AMD on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 123 mm² and 1,500 million transistors. Both have 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines.

The core clocks are a major differentiator. The R9 M375 runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz. The R9 M265X runs at a much lower base clock of 575 MHz and a boost clock of 625 MHz. This directly drives the compute rate differences: the M375 achieves 1,299.2 GFLOPS FP32, while the M265X achieves 800.0 GFLOPS FP32.

Memory configurations also differ. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The R9 M265X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Pixel and texture rates follow the clock speeds. The M375 has a pixel rate of 16.24 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 40.60 GTexel/s. The M265X has a pixel rate of 10.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 25.00 GTexel/s.

Both GPUs support PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has a listed TDP, slot width, power connector requirement, or launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are based on the Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 architecture, but they use different chips. The R9 M375 is built on the Tropo chip, while the R9 M265X uses the Venus chip. Both chips are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with identical transistor counts of 1,500 million and a die size of 123 mm².

The transistor density is identical at 12.2M per mm² for both. The shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are all the same count. Neither GPU features dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both are end-of-life products, and both have the same predecessor and successor in the database: Solar System and Polaris Mobile, respectively.

The architectural difference is therefore not in the underlying GCN design, but in how the same design is configured. The Tropo chip in the M375 is clocked substantially higher, allowing it to extract more performance from the same 640 shading units. The Venus chip in the M265X is clocked much lower, but it is paired with GDDR5 memory, which provides a wider memory pipeline. This combination of a lower core clock and faster memory suggests the M265X was designed with a different power or thermal envelope in mind, though TDP figures are not listed.

The release dates reflect the generational gap. The M265X was released on March 20, 2014, as part of the Gem System (R9 M200) generation. The M375 was released later, on May 4, 2015, as part of the Gem System (R9 M300) generation. Despite the generation naming, both share the GCN 1.0 architecture and identical core counts, meaning the performance difference is almost entirely attributable to clock speeds and memory type. The M375's boost clock is 390 MHz higher than the M265X's, which more than compensates for the M265X's memory bandwidth advantage in the recorded benchmark.