AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M is the clear winner over the AMD Radeon R9 M375. Across the two shared head-to-head tests, the GTX 780M wins both, with a commanding 22.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a massive 31.1% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. The GTX 780M also holds a higher average benchmark score of 11,261 compared to 10,070 for the R9 M375, and it sits in the 50th percentile versus the R9 M375's 48th. For any workload that depends on raw compute throughput, the data points squarely at the NVIDIA part.

The Verdict

The GTX 780M is the performance pick without qualification. It wins both head-to-head tests, and the margins are substantial. In the OpenCL test, the 12,769 score versus 10,457 represents a 22.1% advantage. The Vulkan gap is even larger: 12,696 versus 9,682, a 31.1% edge. This is not a close contest; the GTX 780M is in a different performance class.

The R9 M375 is positioned for users who prioritize the platform or feature set rather than raw speed. Its average score of 10,070 places it within 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10,043) and 0.6% of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013), which shows it is a competent mid-range mobile part. However, it trails the GTX 780M by a wide margin in every shared metric. The data suggests the R9 M375 is better suited for tasks where the GPU is not the primary bottleneck, or where the system's CPU and memory configuration favor AMD's platform.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the GTX 780M for maximum GPU compute performance. Choose the R9 M375 only if the rest of the system requirements dictate an AMD solution, accepting a significant performance deficit. The GTX 780M's nearest rivals — the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228, 0.3% behind) and AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225, 0.3% behind) — confirm that its performance level is competitive with professional workstation parts, further underscoring its superiority over the R9 M375.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The GTX 780M uses the GK104 chip built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip based on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with just 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, resulting in a slightly higher transistor density of 12.2M per mm².

The compute resources differ dramatically. The GTX 780M features 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The R9 M375 has only 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This nearly 2.4x advantage in shading units explains the GTX 780M's dominance in compute-heavy benchmarks. The clock speeds tell a different story: the R9 M375 runs at a base of 1000 MHz with a boost of 1015 MHz, while the GTX 780M is slower at 771 MHz base and 797 MHz boost. Despite the higher clocks, the R9 M375 cannot overcome the GTX 780M's massive hardware resource advantage.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The GTX 780M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with memory clocked at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, providing only 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). This represents a 5.5x bandwidth advantage for the GTX 780M, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution rendering. The GTX 780M also has a higher pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s compared to 16.24 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 102.0 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M has an average benchmark score of 11,261, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 scores 10,070. The GTX 780M also holds a 50th percentile ranking versus the R9 M375's 48th.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 780M in the Vulkan test?

A: The GTX 780M scores 12,696 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 9,682 for the R9 M375. This gives the GTX 780M a 31.1% advantage, its largest win in any shared benchmark.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GTX 780M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 780M has 1,536 shading units, while the R9 M375 has 640 shading units. The GTX 780M also has 128 TMUs versus 40, and 32 ROPs versus 16.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The GTX 780M contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The R9 M375 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a slightly newer feature level than the GTX 780M's DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, with the GTX 780M having Vulkan 1.2.175 versus the R9 M375's Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 780M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors, while the R9 M375 uses Tropo with 1,500 million. The die sizes are 294 mm² and 123 mm² respectively. Clock speeds favor the R9 M375: 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost versus the GTX 780M's 771 MHz base and 797 MHz boost. Memory configurations are vastly different: the GTX 780M has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 1250 MHz, while the R9 M375 has 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 900 MHz. Bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

Compute resources show the GTX 780M's dominance: 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The pixel rate is 25.50 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 102.0 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.448 TFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS. Power consumption is listed at 122 W for the GTX 780M, while the R9 M375 has no TDP specified. The GTX 780M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface with an MXM Module slot, while the R9 M375 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The GTX 780M has no power connectors, while the R9 M375 has none listed.

The APIs differ slightly: the GTX 780M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) versus the R9 M375's DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan versions are 1.2.175 for the GTX 780M and 1.2.170 for the R9 M375. Release dates are May 2013 for the GTX 780M and May 2015 for the R9 M375. The GTX 780M's generation is GeForce 700M, while the R9 M375's is Gem System (R9 M300).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks tell a consistent story of NVIDIA dominance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 780M scores 12,769 against the R9 M375's 10,457, a 22.1% advantage. This test reflects general-purpose compute performance, where the GTX 780M's 1,536 shading units and 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a decisive edge. The GTX 780M's FP32 throughput of 2.448 TFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS for the R9 M375 is the underlying reason for this gap.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even wider margin. The GTX 780M scores 12,696, while the R9 M375 manages only 9,682, a 31.1% delta. Vulkan performance is particularly sensitive to driver overhead and architectural efficiency. The Kepler architecture's geometry processing capabilities and the GTX 780M's higher texture rate of 102.0 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s contribute to this substantial lead. The R9 M375's higher base clock of 1000 MHz cannot compensate for its 640 shading units and narrow 128-bit memory bus.

These results place the GTX 780M in the company of professional workstation GPUs. Its average score of 11,261 is within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228) and the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225). The R9 M375, with an average score of 10,070, is 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10,043) and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013), but it sits 2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273). This shows the R9 M375 is competitive with entry-level professional parts, but the GTX 780M is a full tier above.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780M wins in every scenario where raw compute performance matters. Its 22.1% OpenCL advantage makes it the clear choice for GPU-accelerated applications like video encoding, scientific simulations, and machine learning inference. The 31.1% Vulkan lead means it is also superior for modern game engines that leverage low-level graphics APIs. The 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s is critical for texture-heavy workloads, high-resolution rendering, and any task that requires moving large data sets through the GPU. The 4 GB frame buffer versus 2 GB also allows the GTX 780M to handle larger textures and higher resolutions without memory pressure.

The R9 M375 has no benchmark wins, but its profile suggests specific use cases. Its higher base clock of 1000 MHz versus 771 MHz means it may respond more quickly to short, lightly-threaded workloads that do not fully utilize the GPU. The smaller 123 mm² die and 1,500 million transistors indicate lower manufacturing complexity, which often translates to better thermal characteristics in thin-and-light laptops. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is standard and widely compatible, whereas the GTX 780M's MXM form factor is less common in consumer notebooks. The R9 M375's DirectX 12 (11_1) support is marginally newer than the GTX 780M's DirectX 12 (11_0), though this is unlikely to be noticeable in practice.

The GTX 780M's nearest rivals — all within 1.6% of its average score — are professional workstation cards, suggesting it belongs in a segment for demanding mobile workstations. The R9 M375's rivals include the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, 1.1% behind) and GTX 950A (10,273, 2% ahead), positioning it in the mainstream mobile gaming tier. Users who need maximum performance for professional or heavy gaming workloads should choose the GTX 780M. Users who need a basic, compatible GPU for general use and occasional light gaming may find the R9 M375 adequate, provided they accept the significant performance trade-off.