AMD Radeon R9 M275X vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M275X and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 28 nm era, but they target very different workloads and performance tiers. Benchmark data shows the Quadro K5100M holds a narrow but definitive lead in the only shared test, while the Radeon counters with a superior feature set for its class. The data indicates these are not direct competitors in practice, with the Quadro’s 8 GB frame buffer and dedicated professional positioning setting it apart from the Radeon’s mainstream gaming pedigree.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M275X scores 10582 on average, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 10043. This places the Radeon slightly ahead in overall average, but the Quadro wins the head-to-head OpenCL test.

Q: What is the performance difference in the shared OpenCL benchmark?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the Quadro K5100M scores 11771 versus the Radeon’s 11200, giving the NVIDIA part a 4.9% advantage. The Radeon trails by that margin despite its simpler architecture.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro K5100M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R9 M275X provides 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, meaning the Quadro has four times the capacity and 60% more bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better API support for modern software?

A: The Radeon R9 M275X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Radeon’s DirectX 12 feature level is one tier higher.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes of each chip?

A: The Quadro’s GK104 chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The Radeon’s Venus chip has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, making the NVIDIA silicon more than twice as large in both metrics.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro K5100M achieves 24.67 GPixel/s, while the Radeon R9 M275X delivers 14.80 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA part’s fill rate is roughly 67% higher, reflecting its 32 ROPs versus the Radeon’s 16.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the clear choice for professionals who need large frame buffers and sustained compute performance. Its 8 GB memory capacity dwarfs the Radeon’s 2 GB, and its OpenCL score of 11771 beats the Radeon’s 11200 by 4.9%. The Quadro also offers superior texture and pixel rates, with 98.69 GTexel/s and 24.67 GPixel/s respectively. Anyone working with large datasets, multi-layer compositing, or GPU-accelerated rendering should prefer the Quadro without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon R9 M275X is not without merit, however. Its average benchmark score of 10582 exceeds the Quadro’s 10043, and it does so with far fewer resources. The Radeon’s 1,184.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance comes from just 640 shading units, whereas the Quadro needs 1,536 units to reach 2.369 TFLOPS. For gamers or light content creators who prioritize driver maturity and DirectX 12 (11_1) support, the Radeon offers a more modern feature set. Its 49th percentile ranking versus the Quadro’s 48th also indicates slightly better overall standing among all GPUs.

The data suggests a simple split: choose the Quadro for professional workloads where memory capacity and raw compute matter most, and choose the Radeon for general-purpose use where its higher average score and better API compatibility provide tangible benefits. The Quadro’s 100 W TDP and MXM module form factor also indicate it belongs in workstation-class laptops, while the Radeon’s lack of a listed TDP suggests it fits into thinner, more power-efficient designs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two GPUs is geekbench_opencl, and the results are close but decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11771, while the AMD Radeon R9 M275X scores 11200. This represents a 4.9% victory for the Quadro, a meaningful margin in compute workloads. The deltaPct of -4.9% for the Radeon shows it is on the losing side of this comparison, but not by a dramatic amount.

Looking at the Radeon’s nearest rivals provides context for its OpenCL performance. The AMD Radeon RX 6600S averages 10629, just 0.4% above the R9 M275X’s average of 10582. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti averages 10690, which is 1% higher. These close margins indicate the Radeon sits in a competitive mid-range band where small changes in driver optimization can shift rankings.

The Quadro’s nearest rivals tell a similar story. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 averages 10070, just 0.3% below the Quadro’s 10043. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M averages 10013, a 0.3% deficit. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M averages 9959, trailing by 0.8%. This clustering suggests the Quadro is competitively positioned despite its age, with its OpenCL strength being a notable outlier versus its average score.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystem is the most dramatic differentiator. The Quadro K5100M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R9 M275X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 72.00 GB/s. This quadrupling of capacity and 60% bandwidth increase makes the Quadro vastly superior for memory-intensive tasks like large texture sets or high-resolution compute buffers.

Compute resources also diverge sharply. The Quadro packs 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Radeon has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 for the Quadro versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS for the Radeon, a 100% difference in raw compute throughput. The Quadro’s texture rate of 98.69 GTexel/s is nearly triple the Radeon’s 37.00 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Radeon runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost, while the Quadro stays fixed at 771 MHz for both. The Radeon’s memory also runs faster at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro’s 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The Radeon compensates for fewer resources with higher clocks, but cannot overcome the Quadro’s massive hardware advantage.

The Quadro is the only one with a listed TDP of 100 W and a slot width of MXM Module. Its bus interface is MXM-B (3.0), while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Quadro’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the Radeon’s are unspecified. These differences reflect the Quadro’s workstation laptop design versus the Radeon’s more flexible mobile integration.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon R9 M275X uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture on the Venus chip, which is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². This is a compact design that prioritizes efficiency over sheer throughput.

The Quadro K5100M uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture on the GK104 chip, also built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The density is nearly identical, but the Quadro’s die is 2.4 times larger, reflecting its much higher resource count.

The Radeon’s generation is listed as “Gem System (R9 M200),” with a predecessor of “Solar System” and successor of “Polaris Mobile.” The Quadro belongs to the “Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)” generation, with a predecessor of “Quadro Fermi-M” and successor of “Quadro Maxwell-M.” These lineage differences highlight the distinct product families: AMD’s consumer-oriented R9 series versus NVIDIA’s professional Quadro line.

Both GPUs lack ray tracing and tensor cores, as expected for 28 nm parts from the 2013-2014 era. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon’s higher DirectX feature level is notable, but the Quadro’s Vulkan version is slightly newer. Both support OpenGL 4.6, ensuring compatibility with professional CAD and DCC applications.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins in every scenario that demands memory capacity or raw compute throughput. Its 8 GB frame buffer is essential for GPU-accelerated rendering, large simulation grids, and multi-monitor professional setups. The 115.2 GB/s bandwidth ensures that large datasets can stream quickly, while 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 power handles complex shaders and compute kernels. The Quadro’s 24.67 GPixel/s and 98.69 GTexel/s rates also make it superior for high-resolution texture mapping and pixel-heavy workloads.

The AMD Radeon R9 M275X wins where efficiency and API modernity matter more than brute force. Its higher average benchmark score of 10582 versus 10043 indicates better overall optimization across varied tasks. The Radeon’s DirectX 12 (11_1) support is a full feature level above the Quadro’s 11_0, which matters for newer games and applications that leverage advanced DX12 features. Its smaller 123 mm² die and lower transistor count suggest it runs cooler and consumes less power, though the FACT PACK does not list a TDP for the Radeon.

For gaming, the Radeon’s higher clocks (925 MHz boost versus 771 MHz) and faster memory (4.5 Gbps effective versus 3.6 Gbps) provide an edge in latency-sensitive workloads. Its 49th percentile ranking versus the Quadro’s 48th also indicates slightly better standing in the broader GPU ecosystem. The Radeon’s 640 shading units are fewer but clocked higher, which can deliver competitive frame rates in less demanding titles.

The Quadro’s 100 W TDP and MXM form factor make it suited for large, workstation-class laptops with robust cooling. The Radeon, with no listed TDP or slot width, likely fits into thinner designs. Users who need CUDA acceleration or certified drivers for professional software should choose the Quadro, while those who want a flexible mobile GPU with better DirectX support should consider the Radeon. The data clearly favors the Quadro for compute-heavy professional work and the Radeon for general-purpose mobile use.