AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 and AMD Radeon R9 M295X represent two very different approaches to high-performance graphics from the same era. The data shows a clear overall winner, but the R9 M295X holds a specific advantage in one API that matters for certain users. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and practical implications for each card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison in the FACT PACK includes two Geekbench tests: OpenCL and Vulkan. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 wins both, and the margin is substantial in the first test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M5000 scores 29,481 points against the Radeon R9 M295X’s 22,858 points. That is a 29% delta in favor of NVIDIA. This is a decisive victory, and it aligns with the raw compute specifications: the Quadro M5000 delivers 4.252 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R9 M295X manages 2.961 TFLOPS. The OpenCL workload clearly scales with raw throughput.

The Vulkan test is closer but still favors NVIDIA. The Quadro M5000 scores 32,931 points, while the Radeon R9 M295X scores 29,091 points. The delta here is 13.2%. Interestingly, the Vulkan score for the Quadro M5000 is higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting that Maxwell 2.0 handles the lower-level API efficiently. The R9 M295X also improves from its OpenCL score to Vulkan, but not by enough to close the gap. The absolute numbers show that both cards benefit from Vulkan, but the NVIDIA architecture maintains its edge.

It is worth remembering the Radeon R9 M295X has a third benchmark result not included in the head-to-head: a Geekbench Metal score of 33,790. This is higher than the Quadro M5000’s Vulkan score and far higher than the R9 M295X’s own OpenCL score. However, since the Quadro M5000 was not tested with Metal, this cannot be used as a direct comparison. It does suggest that the AMD card is particularly strong on Apple platforms, which is relevant given its MXM form factor.

Overall, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 wins 2 benchmarks, and the AMD Radeon R9 M295X wins 0. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the Quadro M5000 sits at 31,206, while the R9 M295X averages 28,580. This places the Quadro M5000 in the 76th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 74th percentile for the R9 M295X. The delta in average score is roughly 9.2% in favor of NVIDIA.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 is the faster card. It leads by 29% in OpenCL and by 13.2% in Vulkan. If your primary concern is raw compute performance in cross-platform APIs, the Quadro M5000 is the correct choice. Its 8 GB of VRAM doubles the R9 M295X’s 4 GB, and its memory bandwidth of 211.6 GB/s exceeds the AMD card’s 160.0 GB/s. These are not marginal differences; they will show up in large datasets and high-resolution textures.

However, the Radeon R9 M295X is not without merit. Its Geekbench Metal score of 33,790 is the single highest benchmark result in this entire comparison. If you are on a system that uses Metal exclusively—such as certain Apple portable devices—the R9 M295X may be the better fit despite its lower OpenCL and Vulkan scores. The card’s MXM module form factor also means it was designed for portable or all-in-one systems, whereas the Quadro M5000 is a dual-slot, 267 mm PCIe card.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, so this comparison is more about used hardware or legacy systems than new purchases. Given the benchmark data, the Quadro M5000 is the safer bet for general compute and gaming via Vulkan. The R9 M295X only makes sense if you specifically need Metal performance or require an MXM form factor. Pick NVIDIA for speed; pick AMD for Metal compatibility.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 uses the GM204 chip, based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X uses the Amethyst chip, based on GCN 3.0, and belongs to the Gem System (R9 M200) generation. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but that is where the similarities end.

The transistor counts are close: the Quadro M5000 has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the R9 M295X has 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. This gives the AMD chip a slightly higher transistor density at 13.7M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm² for NVIDIA. In practice, the NVIDIA chip achieves higher clock speeds, which explains its performance advantage. The Quadro M5000 has a base clock of 861 MHz and a boost clock of 1038 MHz. The R9 M295X lists no base or boost clocks in the data, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). This missing clock data makes direct frequency comparison impossible, but the FP32 output tells the story: 4.252 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 2.961 TFLOPS for AMD.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The Quadro M5000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 211.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5, also on a 256-bit bus, but with a lower memory clock of 1250 MHz, resulting in 160.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card offers double the capacity and 32% more bandwidth.

Compute unit counts are identical in one respect: both have 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs. The divergence comes at the render output stage. The Quadro M5000 has 64 ROPs, while the R9 M295X has only 32 ROPs. This directly impacts pixel fill rate: 66.43 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 23.14 GPixel/s for AMD. The texture fill rate also favors NVIDIA at 132.9 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. The R9 M295X does support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 2.961 TFLOPS, whereas the Quadro M5000 lists no FP16 capability.

API support shows another split. The Quadro M5000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version give NVIDIA an edge in modern titles and applications.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 scores 29,481 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 29% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M295X’s 22,858.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R9 M295X win any benchmark?

A: In the head-to-head comparison, the R9 M295X wins 0 benchmarks. However, it has a standalone Geekbench Metal score of 33,790, which is higher than any score achieved by the Quadro M5000 in the tested APIs.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card has higher power consumption?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 has a TDP of 150 W. The NVIDIA card also requires a 450 W suggested PSU, while no PSU suggestion is listed for the AMD card.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 and the AMD Radeon R9 M295X are listed as end-of-life products.

Q: Which card has better driver support for newer graphics APIs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0).

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 wins in every head-to-head benchmark, but its strengths are most pronounced in specific scenarios. The 29% OpenCL lead makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, scientific simulation, or any workload that leverages OpenCL. Its 8 GB VRAM and 211.6 GB/s bandwidth are critical for large textures or datasets that would overflow the R9 M295X’s 4 GB buffer. The higher ROP count (64 vs 32) and pixel fill rate (66.43 GPixel/s vs 23.14 GPixel/s) give it a major advantage in rasterization-heavy workloads, such as high-resolution gaming or multi-display setups. The dual-slot PCIe form factor also makes it suitable for desktop workstations with standard power supplies.

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X wins in one specific area: Metal performance. Its Geekbench Metal score of 33,790 is the highest single benchmark result in this comparison. This is relevant for users on macOS or other Metal-based environments. The card’s MXM-B (3.0) interface and portable device-dependent display outputs indicate it was designed for laptops or all-in-one systems where space and power connectors are limited. The lack of power connectors and the 250 W TDP suggest it draws power directly from the motherboard, which is typical for MXM modules. If you have a system that requires an MXM form factor and uses Metal, the R9 M295X is the only viable option here.

For everyone else, the Quadro M5000 is the superior choice. It offers higher performance in both tested APIs, double the memory, and significantly better fill rates. The lower TDP (150 W vs 250 W) also makes it easier to cool and power in a standard desktop chassis. The only reasons to pick the R9 M295X are Metal compatibility and the MXM form factor.

Specification Differences

This section lists only the fields where the two cards differ, based on the FACT PACK data.

• Chip: NVIDIA uses GM204; AMD uses Amethyst.
• Architecture: NVIDIA is Maxwell 2.0; AMD is GCN 3.0.
• Generation: NVIDIA is Quadro Maxwell (Mx000); AMD is Gem System (R9 M200).
• Transistors: NVIDIA has 5,200 million; AMD has 5,000 million.
• Die Size: NVIDIA is 398 mm²; AMD is 366 mm².
• Transistor Density: NVIDIA is 13.1M / mm²; AMD is 13.7M / mm².
• Base Clock: NVIDIA is 861 MHz; AMD has none listed.
• Boost Clock: NVIDIA is 1038 MHz; AMD has none listed.
• Memory Clock: NVIDIA is 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective); AMD is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: NVIDIA is 8 GB; AMD is 4 GB.
• Memory Bandwidth: NVIDIA is 211.6 GB/s; AMD is 160.0 GB/s.
• ROPs: NVIDIA has 64; AMD has 32.
• Pixel Rate: NVIDIA is 66.43 GPixel/s; AMD is 23.14 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: NVIDIA is 132.9 GTexel/s; AMD is 92.54 GTexel/s.
• FP32: NVIDIA is 4.252 TFLOPS; AMD is 2.961 TFLOPS.
• FP16: NVIDIA has none listed; AMD is 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: NVIDIA is 150 W; AMD is 250 W.
• Slot Width: NVIDIA is dual-slot; AMD is MXM module.
• Power Connectors: NVIDIA has 1x 6-pin; AMD has none.
• Suggested PSU: NVIDIA is 450 W; AMD has none listed.
• Bus Interface: NVIDIA is PCIe 3.0 x16; AMD is MXM-B (3.0).
• Display Outputs: NVIDIA has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2; AMD is portable device dependent.
• Vulkan Version: NVIDIA supports 1.4; AMD supports 1.2.170.
• DirectX: NVIDIA supports 12 (12_1); AMD supports 12 (12_0).
• Dimensions: NVIDIA is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high; AMD has no dimensions listed.
• Release Date: NVIDIA is 2015-06-28; AMD is 2014-11-22.
• Predecessor: NVIDIA is Quadro Kepler; AMD is Solar System.
• Successor: NVIDIA is Quadro Pascal; AMD is Polaris Mobile.
• Benchmarks: NVIDIA has Geekbench OpenCL (29,481) and Vulkan (32,931); AMD has Geekbench Metal (33,790), OpenCL (22,858), and Vulkan (29,091).
• Average Benchmark Score: NVIDIA is 31,206; AMD is 28,580.
• Percentile: NVIDIA is 76th; AMD is 74th.
• Nearest Rivals: NVIDIA’s closest rival is the GRID M60-1Q (31,220, 0% delta); AMD’s closest rival is the Quadro RTX 8000 (28,421, 0.6% delta).