AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD Radeon R9 M265X takes a decisive victory. The M265X scores 8851 points, while the Quadro 5000 manages 7289 points. That is a 21.4% difference in favor of the AMD part. This is not a marginal gap; in raw compute throughput, the M265X is firmly ahead.

Context from the nearest rival lists reinforces this result. The M265X sits within 1.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and the GeForce GTX 460 v2, with the RTX 3050 A Mobile scoring 8746 and the GTX 460 v2 scoring 8743. The Quadro 5000, meanwhile, is closest to the GeForce GTX 750, which scores 7222, and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7203. The M265X outperforms those lower-tier rivals by a wider margin than the Quadro does.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The M265X sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 5000 sits at the 40th percentile. Neither card is a top-tier performer, but the AMD part places higher in the overall distribution. The benchmark results indicate that for any OpenCL compute workload, the M265X is the stronger choice, delivering roughly one-fifth more performance than the Quadro.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 8851, versus the NVIDIA Quadro 5000's 7289, a 21.4% advantage.

Q: How does the M265X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The M265X is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8863), 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon 550X (8918), and 1.2% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) and GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743).

Q: Where does the Quadro 5000 stand relative to its closest competitors?

A: The Quadro 5000 is 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 750 (7222), 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203), 1.6% ahead of the GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171), and 1.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 5000 has a 320-bit bus and 120.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the M265X has a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro provides nearly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a larger framebuffer?

A: The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. The Quadro offers 0.5 GB more capacity.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The Quadro 5000 was released on February 22, 2011, while the Radeon R9 M265X came later, on March 20, 2014.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X uses the Venus chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000, in contrast, uses the GF100 chip with Fermi architecture, also built by TSMC but on a 40 nm process. It houses 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, with a transistor density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. The newer process node allows the AMD chip to be far denser despite having fewer total transistors.

The shader configuration differs substantially. The M265X has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Despite having nearly half the shaders, the Quadro has more TMUs and more than double the ROP count. This leads to different performance characteristics: the M265X delivers 800.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro delivers 722.3 GFLOPS. The pixel rate favors the Quadro at 11.29 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s, but the texture rate favors the M265X at 25.00 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another clear divergence. The M265X uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s. The Quadro 5000 uses a 320-bit bus with 2.5 GB of GDDR5 at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), yielding 120.0 GB/s. The Quadro's wider bus and higher bandwidth are typical of workstation cards that handle large datasets. API support also differs: the M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support listed.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for compute performance: the AMD Radeon R9 M265X wins the sole benchmark by 21.4% and sits in a higher percentile. Anyone running OpenCL workloads should pick the M265X. It delivers more FP32 compute, higher texture throughput, and a newer architecture with better API support including Vulkan.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000, however, has its own strengths that the benchmark does not capture. It offers 2.5 GB of memory versus 2 GB, a 320-bit memory bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 64.00 GB/s, and higher pixel fill rate. The Quadro also has a dual-slot cooler, a 6-pin power connector, and a suggested 450 W power supply, indicating a desktop workstation design, while the M265X is a mobile-class part with no listed power specifications. The Quadro was built for professional visualization, and its memory subsystem reflects that purpose.

For a pure compute benchmark comparison, the M265X is the winner. For workloads that depend on memory bandwidth or large framebuffers, the Quadro 5000 has structural advantages. The M265X is the better all-round performer in the recorded data, but the Quadro is not without merit in specific scenarios.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ.

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M265X | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 |

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

| Chip | Venus | GF100 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Generation | Gem System (R9 M200) | Quadro Fermi (x000) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 575 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 625 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 2.5 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 120.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 352 |

| TMUs | 40 | 44 |

| ROPs | 16 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.00 GPixel/s | 11.29 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 25.00 GTexel/s | 22.57 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 800.0 GFLOPS | 722.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 152 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Not specified | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | Not specified |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 248 mm (9.8 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2014-03-20 | 2011-02-22 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Kepler |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 2,499 USD |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 8851 | 7289 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 44% | 40% |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X wins in raw compute throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 21.4% higher, and its FP32 rating of 800.0 GFLOPS exceeds the Quadro's 722.3 GFLOPS. The M265X also has higher texture rate (25.00 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s) and supports newer APIs including Vulkan 1.2.170. For general compute tasks, shader-heavy workloads, or any application that leverages modern API features, the M265X is the pick.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins in memory-centric scenarios. Its 120.0 GB/s bandwidth is nearly double the M265X's 64.00 GB/s, and its 320-bit bus provides far more headroom for large data transfers. The 2.5 GB framebuffer is 25% larger, which helps with textures or datasets that exceed 2 GB. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate (11.29 GPixel/s), making it potentially better for fill-rate-limited tasks. Its dual-slot desktop design with a 6-pin power connector and 450 W suggested PSU indicates a platform intended for sustained professional workloads, whereas the M265X appears oriented toward mobile systems.

In practical terms, if the workload is compute-bound in OpenCL, the M265X wins outright. If the workload is memory-bound or requires a larger framebuffer, the Quadro 5000 has the advantage. The benchmark data only covers the former, but the specification sheet reveals where each card's strengths lie.