AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs AMD Radeon RX 6500M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M and the AMD Radeon R9 M375 represent two vastly different eras of mobile graphics, with the former built on modern RDNA 2.0 architecture and the latter on the aging GCN 1.0 design. Benchmark data shows a decisive generational gap, with the RX 6500M delivering over three times the performance in compute workloads. While both cards occupy the same 48th percentile ranking among all GPUs, their individual scores and architectural foundations tell a story of technological progression that leaves the older R9 M375 far behind.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmark results paint an unambiguous picture of dominance for the RX 6500M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6500M scores 38,586 points against the R9 M375's 10,457 points. This translates to a 269% advantage for the newer card, a margin that indicates the R9 M375 is not merely slower but operates in an entirely different performance class. For context, the RX 6500M's average benchmark score of 10,362 places it nearly alongside the NVIDIA Tesla C2075, which scores 10,400 (a delta of -0.4%), and it slightly edges out the AMD Radeon RX 550X, which scores 10,481 (a delta of -1.1%).

The Vulkan results are even more lopsided. The RX 6500M achieves 43,837 points, while the R9 M375 manages just 9,682 points—a staggering 352.8% difference. This near-fourfold gap highlights how the newer architecture excels in modern API workloads. The R9 M375's Vulkan score is actually lower than its OpenCL score, whereas the RX 6500M shows the opposite trend, suggesting that RDNA 2.0 is better optimized for contemporary graphics APIs. The R9 M375's nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, scores 10,043 on average (a delta of 0.3%), putting the older AMD card in a similar performance envelope to mid-range mobile workstations from its era.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the RX 6500M, its PassMark G3D score of 7,531 and GPU compute score of 2,669 demonstrate solid DirectX performance, though its DirectX 12 score of 34 is notably lower than its DirectX 11 score of 70. The R9 M375 lacks these PassMark results entirely, making a direct comparison impossible, but its absence from those tests reinforces its status as a legacy product. The RX 6500M's Geekbench Vulkan score of 43,837 is particularly impressive when considering that its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X, averages 10,582 points—a 2.1% delta from the RX 6500M's average, yet the RX 6500M's Vulkan output dwarfs that figure.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RX 6500M in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The RX 6500M scores 38,586 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 269% higher than the R9 M375's 10,457. This means the newer card completes compute tasks nearly four times faster in this benchmark.

Q: Does the R9 M375 have any benchmark where it beats the RX 6500M?

A: No. Across the two shared benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the RX 6500M wins both. The head-to-head data shows 2 wins for the RX 6500M and 0 wins for the R9 M375.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between these two GPUs?

A: The RX 6500M has an average benchmark score of 10,362, while the R9 M375 averages 10,070. The difference is approximately 292 points, or about 2.9% in favor of the RX 6500M based on these aggregate figures.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The RX 6500M sits within 2.1% of its closest competitors, including the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273). The R9 M375 is within 2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273) and 0.6% of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013).

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The RX 6500M achieves 43,837 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 352.8% higher than the R9 M375's 9,682. This represents the largest performance gap between the two cards in any benchmark.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both the RX 6500M and the R9 M375 are marked as end-of-life products. The R9 M375 was released on 2015-05-04, while the RX 6500M came later on 2022-01-03.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The RX 6500M uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. This modern design incorporates 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². In contrast, the R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors onto a larger 123 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 12.2M per mm².

The RX 6500M features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores, a capability entirely absent from the R9 M375. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the older card is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Vulkan support differs as well: the RX 6500M supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the R9 M375 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards share OpenGL 4.6 support, but the feature set divergence elsewhere is stark.

The RX 6500M's memory architecture is also modern: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering only 28.80 GB/s. The newer card's memory clock is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the older card runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The RX 6500M's interface is PCIe 4.0 x4, compared to the R9 M375's PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 6500M is designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors, while the R9 M375's power configuration is unspecified.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is process technology: 6 nm for the RX 6500M versus 28 nm for the R9 M375. This directly impacts transistor count (5,400 million vs 1,500 million) and die size (107 mm² vs 123 mm²). Clock speeds differ substantially: the RX 6500M runs at 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, with a game clock of 2191 MHz, while the R9 M375 operates at 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. Memory configurations are also distinct: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus versus 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Shader resources are heavily skewed toward the newer card. The RX 6500M has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This results in dramatically different fill rates: the RX 6500M achieves 76.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 153.6 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 16.24 GPixel/s and 40.60 GTexel/s for the older card. Compute performance follows suit: the RX 6500M delivers 4.915 TFLOPS FP32 and 9.830 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the R9 M375 offers 1,299.2 GFLOPS FP32 and no listed FP16 capability.

The RX 6500M has a TDP of 50 W and is classified as IGP slot width with no power connectors. The R9 M375's TDP is not specified. The RX 6500M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the R9 M375's outputs are not specified. Both cards are end-of-life, but the R9 M375's predecessor is listed as "Solar System" and its successor as "Polaris Mobile," while the RX 6500M's predecessor is "Polaris Mobile" with no successor listed.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD Radeon RX 6500M for any modern workload. Its 269% OpenCL advantage and 352.8% Vulkan advantage over the R9 M375 are not incremental improvements but generational leaps. The RX 6500M's ray tracing support and DirectX 12 Ultimate compliance make it suitable for current gaming and compute applications, while the R9 M375's GCN 1.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (11_1) support limit it to legacy software. The newer card also offers double the memory (4 GB vs 2 GB) with significantly faster GDDR6 technology, despite a narrower 64-bit bus.

However, the R9 M375 is not without merit in its historical context. Its average benchmark score of 10,070 places it within 2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A and 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, showing it was competitive with mid-range options of its time. The 128-bit memory bus, while paired with slower DDR3, provides architectural balance that was typical for 2015-era mobile GPUs. For users running older DirectX 11 applications or OpenGL workloads, the R9 M375 remains functional, but its 28 nm process and 1,500 million transistors cannot compete with the efficiency and raw power of the 6 nm Navi 24 chip.

Users seeking any semblance of modern gaming performance, ray tracing, or compute acceleration should choose the RX 6500M without hesitation. Its 50 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, while its 4 GB GDDR6 memory handles contemporary textures. The R9 M375 is only advisable for legacy system compatibility or extremely low-demand tasks, where its 640 shading units and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth might suffice. The 48th percentile ranking for both cards underscores that they sit in the middle of the GPU landscape, but the RX 6500M achieves this with vastly superior technology, making it the clear pick for anyone not bound to decade-old hardware.