AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs AMD Radeon Vega 8 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 and AMD Radeon Vega 8 represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics: a dedicated discrete GPU from 2015 versus a modern integrated processor from 2018. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows the R9 M375 winning both shared head-to-head tests, yet the Vega 8 counters with superior architectural efficiency and a broader API feature set. The R9 M375 achieves an average benchmark score of 10070 against the Vega 8’s 9221, a gap of roughly 9.2%, but the integrated part operates within a 25 W TDP envelope, which the discrete card lacks. These are end-of-life products, but their data reveals how far integrated graphics have come in closing the gap with older discrete solutions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 scores 10070 on average, while the AMD Radeon Vega 8 scores 9221. The R9 M375 outperforms the Vega 8 by approximately 8.4% in this aggregate metric.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The R9 M375 scores 10457, while the Vega 8 scores 8822. The R9 M375 leads by 18.5% in this compute-oriented benchmark, which is one of the two head-to-head tests where it wins.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The R9 M375 again takes the win with a score of 9682 versus the Vega 8’s 8134. This represents a 19% advantage for the discrete R9 M375, making it the larger of its two head-to-head victories.

Q: Does the Vega 8 have any architectural advantages over the R9 M375?

A: Yes, the Vega 8 uses the GCN 5.0 architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the R9 M375 uses GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm TSMC process. The Vega 8 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the R9 M375 maxes out at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the memory configurations for each GPU?

A: The R9 M375 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 8 uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is System Dependent and its memory size and bus width are also shared with the system.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The R9 M375 sits at the 48th percentile, while the Vega 8 is at the 45th percentile. Despite the R9 M375’s higher average score, both rank in the lower-middle range of the overall GPU distribution.

Where Each One Wins

The R9 M375 wins decisively in raw compute and graphics throughput as measured by Geekbench. It takes both head-to-head tests, with a 18.5% lead in OpenCL and a 19% lead in Vulkan. Its dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth provides a fixed resource that the Vega 8 lacks, as the integrated part depends entirely on system memory with System Dependent bandwidth. For tasks that rely on sustained memory access or consistent frame pacing, the R9 M375’s dedicated VRAM is a structural advantage that shows up in its higher average score of 10070.

The Vega 8 wins in efficiency and modern feature support. It operates at a 25 W TDP and requires no power connectors, making it a drop-in solution for ultraportable systems where the R9 M375’s power draw is unspecified but its discrete nature implies a separate power budget. The Vega 8 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, both newer than the R9 M375’s DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. This means the Vega 8 is better positioned for titles that use modern rendering pipelines, even if its raw scores are lower. Its 14 nm process and higher transistor density of 23.5M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm² also indicate a more modern design that extracts more performance per transistor.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The R9 M375 is built on GCN 1.0, AMD’s first-generation Graphics Core Next architecture, using a 28 nm process from TSMC. Its chip, Tropo, packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². The Vega 8, by contrast, uses GCN 5.0 on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with the Raven chip containing 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, resulting in a density of 23.5M / mm². The Vega 8’s density is nearly double, reflecting the newer manufacturing node and architectural refinements.

The shading resources differ as well. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The Vega 8 has fewer of each: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This explains why the R9 M375 achieves higher pixel and texture rates — 16.24 GPixel/s and 40.60 GTexel/s versus the Vega 8’s 8.800 GPixel/s and 35.20 GTexel/s. However, the Vega 8 supports FP16 computation at 2.253 TFLOPS (2:1), while the R9 M375 has no listed FP16 capability. The R9 M375 does lead in FP32, with 1,299.2 GFLOPS versus the Vega 8’s 1,126.4 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is memory. The R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 8 uses System Shared memory for size, type, and bus width, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent. This makes the R9 M375 predictable in memory-bound workloads, while the Vega 8’s performance varies with the host system’s RAM.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The R9 M375 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1015 MHz, while the Vega 8 has a much lower base of 300 MHz but a higher boost of 1100 MHz. The Vega 8’s wide clock range suggests aggressive power management, ramping up when needed. The R9 M375’s memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), whereas the Vega 8 has no dedicated memory clock.

Other differences include the R9 M375’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the Vega 8’s IGP bus interface, and the Vega 8’s 25 W TDP, slot width of IGP, and lack of power connectors — all factors that make it suitable for integrated use. The R9 M375 has no listed TDP, slot width, or power connectors in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clear pattern: the R9 M375 wins both available benchmarks, but the margin is not overwhelming. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9 M375 scores 10457 against the Vega 8’s 8822, a delta of 18.5%. This likely reflects the R9 M375’s higher FP32 throughput of 1,299.2 GFLOPS and its dedicated memory bandwidth. The Vega 8’s lower 1,126.4 GFLOPS and shared memory put it at a distinct disadvantage in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the R9 M375 extends its lead slightly to 19%, scoring 9682 versus 8134. Vulkan is a modern API that the R9 M375 supports only at version 1.2.170, while the Vega 8 supports 1.3. Despite the Vega 8’s newer API, the R9 M375’s superior texture rate of 40.60 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 16.24 GPixel/s likely carry it through. The Vega 8’s 35.20 GTexel/s and 8.800 GPixel/s are not enough to overcome the R9 M375’s raw throughput.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the R9 M375 sits just 0.3% above the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M, while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A by 2%. The Vega 8, meanwhile, is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon 890M (0.1% ahead) and trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 by 0.6%. These comparisons place both GPUs in a narrow performance band, with the R9 M375’s advantage over the Vega 8 being larger than the gaps between either GPU and its closest rivals.

The Verdict

For users who prioritize raw compute performance and have a system with a dedicated PCIe slot, the R9 M375 is the clear choice from the data. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by roughly 19%, holds a higher average score of 10070 versus 9221, and offers dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with fixed 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. Its 48th percentile ranking versus the Vega 8’s 45th also reflects a slightly better standing among all GPUs. The R9 M375 is particularly suited to OpenCL and Vulkan workloads where its higher FP32 and texture rates translate directly into higher scores.

For users building or buying a compact, power-efficient system, the Vega 8 is the more rational pick despite losing both benchmarks. Its 25 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and IGP form factor mean it requires no additional cooling or power delivery. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, which are newer than the R9 M375’s DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, making it more future-proof for software that leverages these APIs. The Vega 8’s FP16 capability at 2.253 TFLOPS also gives it an edge in workloads that can use half-precision math, even though its FP32 is lower.

The data does not support the Vega 8 as a performance winner, but it does support it as a modern, efficient alternative. The R9 M375 is a legacy discrete part that wins on brute force; the Vega 8 is an integrated part that trades some performance for versatility and lower system impact. If the choice is between a used laptop with the R9 M375 and a modern ultrabook with the Vega 8, the Vega 8’s newer architecture and API support make it the more sensible long-term investment, despite the R9 M375’s benchmark lead. If raw scores are the only metric, the R9 M375 wins outright.