AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs AMD Radeon R9 M375X Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores of the AMD Radeon R9 M375 and R9 M375X compare?

A: The R9 M375 has an average benchmark score of 10,070, while the R9 M375X scores 8,325. The R9 M375 leads by a substantial margin, placing it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 43rd percentile for the R9 M375X.

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 10,457 versus 8,273 for the R9 M375X, a delta of 26.4%.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using the Tropo chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both have identical transistor counts of 1,500 million and a die size of 123 mm².

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two cards?

A: The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus and a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The R9 M375X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with the same 128-bit bus but a much higher bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s.

Q: Does the higher memory bandwidth of the R9 M375X translate into better benchmark performance?

A: No, the recorded data shows the opposite. Despite its superior memory bandwidth, the R9 M375X scores lower in both OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The R9 M375 wins both head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for these GPUs based on average score?

A: For the R9 M375, the nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10,043, 0.3% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, 1.1% difference). For the R9 M375X, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (8,265, 0.7% difference).

Architecture Differences

Both the AMD Radeon R9 M375 and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X share the same core architecture: GCN 1.0 with the Tropo chip. The manufacturing process is identical at 28 nm by TSMC, and both GPUs integrate 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. This results in the same transistor density of 12.2 million transistors per mm². The shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units are also identical, with 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on each.

The architectural differences are not in the silicon itself but in how the memory subsystem and clock speeds are configured. The R9 M375 runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz, with memory clocked at 900 MHz, delivering 1800 Mbps effective. The R9 M375X, by contrast, has a lower base clock of 925 MHz but the same boost clock of 1015 MHz. Its memory is clocked significantly higher at 1125 MHz, which translates to 4.5 Gbps effective. The memory type is the primary divergence: DDR3 on the R9 M375 versus GDDR5 on the R9 M375X.

Despite the memory differences, the compute rates are identical for both cards. Pixel rate is 16.24 GPixel/s, texture rate is 40.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 1,299.2 GFLOPS for each. This means the raw shader throughput is unchanged. The architectural feature set is also identical, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a decisive, though perhaps counterintuitive, result. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 outperforms the R9 M375X in both benchmark tests, despite the latter having faster memory technology.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R9 M375 scores 10,457 points, while the R9 M375X scores 8,273 points. This is a delta of 26.4% in favor of the R9 M375. This substantial lead is notable because memory bandwidth is often considered a limiting factor in compute workloads. Yet here, the baseline card with slower DDR3 memory runs ahead by more than a quarter.

The Vulkan test shows a similar but smaller gap. The R9 M375 scores 9,682, while the R9 M375X scores 8,377. The delta here is 15.6% in favor of the R9 M375. This indicates that while the Vulkan API narrows the relative difference, the R9 M375 still holds a comfortable advantage.

The overall win count is 2 wins for the R9 M375 and 0 wins for the R9 M375X. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: 10,070 for the R9 M375 versus 8,325 for the R9 M375X. In terms of performance percentiles, the R9 M375 sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M375X sits at the 43rd percentile.

When placed next to their nearest rivals, the R9 M375 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, which scores 10,043, a difference of only 0.3%. It is also 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959). The R9 M375 is 2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A, which scores 10,273.

The R9 M375X, on the other hand, is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (8,265). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427) by 1.2%, the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436) by 1.3%, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458) by 1.6%.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs are near twins on paper, but the memory and clock fields diverge. The base clock is lower on the R9 M375X at 925 MHz versus 1000 MHz on the R9 M375. Both share the same boost clock of 1015 MHz. The memory clock differs markedly: the R9 M375 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the R9 M375X runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

Memory type is the most important distinction. The R9 M375 uses DDR3, while the R9 M375X uses GDDR5. Both have 2 GB of memory on a 128 bit bus. The bandwidth figures reflect the memory type: 28.80 GB/s for the R9 M375 and 72.00 GB/s for the R9 M375X. That is a 2.5x difference in bandwidth, yet it does not produce a performance advantage in the recorded benchmarks.

All other compute specifications are identical. Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are the same at 640, 40, and 16 respectively. Pixel rate and texture rate are both 16.24 GPixel/s and 40.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 1,299.2 GFLOPS for both. The process node, foundry, transistor count, and die size are all the same.

The APIs supported are also identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards are end-of-life, released on the same date in May 2015, and belong to the same generation, Gem System. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the database.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward selection. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 is the faster GPU, winning both head-to-head benchmarks and holding a 21% higher average benchmark score (10,070 versus 8,325). Its performance percentile is higher as well at 48 versus 43. For any application that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the R9 M375 is the better choice.

The R9 M375X has one clear advantage: memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory delivers 72.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s for the R9 M375. In workloads that are purely memory-bound, this could matter. However, the recorded benchmark data does not reflect that advantage. The R9 M375X scores lower in OpenCL by 26.4% and in Vulkan by 15.6%. The higher bandwidth does not improve compute or graphics throughput in the tests recorded in the database.

The architectural parity between the two cards suggests that the R9 M375's higher base clock of 1000 MHz, compared to 925 MHz on the R9 M375X, is the differentiating factor. The boost clocks are identical at 1015 MHz, so the sustained memory bandwidth from the GDDR5 does not compensate for the lower base frequency in these workloads.

The R9 M375 also has a stronger competitive position. It is within 2% of its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A, while the R9 M375X is up to 1.6% behind its nearest rivals. If the user is choosing between these two specific AMD parts, the R9 M375 is the better pick for benchmark performance, and the R9 M375X is only preferable if the specific workload rewards the higher memory bandwidth more than the benchmark suite does.

Given the data, the R9 M375 is recommended for general compute tasks and for users who prioritize raw benchmark scores. The R9 M375X, despite its faster memory, does not translate that bandwidth into better results in the tests recorded here. The verdict is straightforward: the R9 M375 wins on performance, and the R9 M375X should only be considered if the memory bandwidth is a specific requirement for a particular application.