AMD Radeon R9 M275X vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M275X and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions that, despite their similar shading-unit counts, deliver measurably different performance profiles in the benchmark data. The AMD part wins both head-to-head tests, but the Quadro counters with a larger memory pool and a more modern feature set. This analysis breaks down the numbers to determine which GPU holds the edge in specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results give the AMD Radeon R9 M275X a clear, though not overwhelming, victory across both tested workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD card scores 11,200 points against the Quadro M2000M’s 10,057 points, a delta of 11.4 percent. This is the single largest performance gap between the two cards in any metric, and it indicates that the AMD architecture handles general-purpose compute tasks with notably higher efficiency in this specific test.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a closer story. The Radeon R9 M275X again comes out ahead, scoring 9,964 versus the Quadro’s 9,606, but the margin shrinks to just 3.7 percent. This narrower gap suggests that when both GPUs are pushed through a modern graphics API, the NVIDIA part’s architectural advantages help it close the distance, though it still cannot overtake the AMD solution. The data shows the AMD card winning both head-to-head matchups, giving it a 2-0 record in these benchmarks.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X posts an average benchmark score of 10,582 across all tests, placing it in the 49th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, which scores 10,629 (a 0.4 percent difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti at 10,690 (a 1 percent difference). The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, by contrast, averages 9,832 points and sits in the 47th percentile. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 9,846 points, a mere 0.1 percent ahead, while the AMD FirePro W5000 trails by 0.3 percent at 9,803 points.

The average score differential between the two cards is substantial: the Radeon leads by 750 points, approximately 7.6 percent of the Quadro’s average. This consistent advantage across both individual tests and the aggregate score makes the performance hierarchy unambiguous, even if the Vulkan test shows the NVIDIA card is competitive in specific scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Venus chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M employs the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node offers no inherent advantage to either card.

The transistor counts and die sizes tell a story of different design priorities. NVIDIA packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. AMD’s Venus chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is physically larger and more complex, which likely contributes to its higher power consumption.

Clock speeds favor the NVIDIA card significantly. The Quadro M2000M runs at a base clock of 1,098 MHz and boosts to 1,137 MHz, while the Radeon R9 M275X operates at just 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The NVIDIA GPU’s higher clocks help it achieve better raw throughput in certain calculations, even though the AMD card wins the benchmark tests. Memory clocks also favor NVIDIA: the Quadro runs its GDDR5 at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), versus the Radeon’s 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystems are a major differentiator. The Quadro M2000M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5, double the Radeon’s 2 GB, and offers 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth versus 72.00 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the NVIDIA card’s higher memory clock gives it an 11.4 percent bandwidth advantage. For workloads that exceed 2 GB of video memory, the Quadro has a clear capacity edge.

Compute resources are surprisingly balanced. Both cards feature 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The difference lies in the execution rates: the Quadro’s higher clocks yield an 18.19 GPixel/s pixel rate and 45.48 GTexel/s texture rate, while the Radeon manages 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 throughput, the Quadro produces 1,455.4 GFLOPS against the Radeon’s 1,184.0 GFLOPS — a 22.9 percent theoretical advantage that the benchmark results do not fully reflect.

API support shows a mixed picture. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro’s Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than the Radeon’s Vulkan 1.2.170, which may explain the narrower gap in the Vulkan benchmark. Power and form factor details also differ: the Quadro is rated at 55 W TDP, uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface, and requires no external power connectors, while the Radeon’s TDP and power connector requirements are not specified in the data.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the AMD Radeon R9 M275X as the stronger performer in compute-oriented workloads. It wins both the OpenCL test by 11.4 percent and the Vulkan test by 3.7 percent, and its average benchmark score of 10,582 outpaces the Quadro’s 9,832 by roughly 7.6 percent. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in applications that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, the AMD card is the statistically superior choice.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is not without merit. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double the Radeon’s 2 GB, which matters for workloads with large data sets or high-resolution textures that exceed 2 GB. The Quadro also offers higher theoretical throughput rates, with 22.9 percent more FP32 performance, 18.19 GPixel/s pixel fill, and 45.48 GTexel/s texture fill. It runs at significantly higher clocks and supports Vulkan 1.4, a more recent API revision.

The choice depends on workload characteristics. If the application fits within 2 GB of memory and relies on OpenCL compute, the Radeon R9 M275X is the winner. If the workload demands more memory capacity or benefits from newer Vulkan features, the Quadro M2000M becomes the more sensible pick, despite its lower benchmark scores. The data does not support a universal recommendation; it supports a workload-specific one.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M275X has an average benchmark score of 10,582, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M averages 9,832 points. That gives the AMD card a lead of 750 points, or approximately 7.6 percent.

Q: How significant is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is exactly double the Radeon R9 M275X’s 2 GB. This capacity difference can be decisive for workloads that require more than 2 GB of video memory.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card have any performance advantages despite losing the benchmarks?

A: Yes. The Quadro M2000M has higher theoretical throughput: 1,455.4 GFLOPS FP32 versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS, 18.19 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 14.80 GPixel/s, and 45.48 GTexel/s texture rate versus 37.00 GTexel/s. It also runs at higher clocks (1,098 MHz base / 1,137 MHz boost versus 900 MHz / 925 MHz).

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan API support?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R9 M275X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer API version on the NVIDIA card may partially explain why its Vulkan benchmark score is closer to the AMD card than the OpenCL score.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon R9 M275X’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, with an average score of 10,629, just 0.4 percent higher. The Quadro M2000M’s closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 9,846, which is 0.1 percent higher than its own score.

Q: Which card has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M offers 80.19 GB/s of memory bandwidth, compared to the Radeon R9 M275X’s 72.00 GB/s. This represents an 11.4 percent advantage for the NVIDIA card, driven by its higher memory clock of 1,253 MHz versus 1,125 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M275X wins in compute-heavy benchmarks. Its 11.4 percent OpenCL advantage over the Quadro is the largest performance gap recorded between the two cards. For applications that offload parallel processing to the GPU via OpenCL, the AMD card delivers measurably better results. The 3.7 percent Vulkan win reinforces this pattern, though the smaller margin suggests the AMD advantage narrows in graphics-oriented tasks. The Radeon’s 49th percentile ranking and average score of 10,582 place it in a competitive position against a wide range of GPUs, including newer parts like the RX 6600S.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. With 4 GB of GDDR5, it can handle datasets that would exceed the Radeon’s 2 GB limit. Its 80.19 GB/s bandwidth is 11.4 percent higher than the AMD card’s 72.00 GB/s, which benefits texture-heavy workloads. The Quadro also holds advantages in raw fill rates: 18.19 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s. For users running Vulkan applications that leverage the newer 1.4 API, the Quadro offers compatibility that the Radeon cannot match. The Quadro’s 55 W TDP and MXM-A form factor also make it a distinct integration option, though the Radeon’s power characteristics are not documented for comparison.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two GPUs:

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M275X | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Chip | Venus | GM107 |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | 1,098 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 925 MHz | 1,137 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) | 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 14.80 GPixel/s | 18.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 37.00 GTexel/s | 45.48 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,184.0 GFLOPS | 1,455.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 55 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

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