AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data tells a story of total dominance by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK, but the magnitude of the gap is what really matters. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN BLACK scores 27,218 against the Radeon R9 M375's 10,457. That is a 61.6% deficit for the AMD part — the NVIDIA card is roughly 2.6 times faster. The Vulkan test is even more lopsided: the TITAN BLACK hits 29,561 while the R9 M375 manages only 9,682, a 67.2% gap. In practical terms, the NVIDIA card delivers nearly three times the compute throughput in this API.

The R9 M375 does not win a single head-to-head benchmark in this comparison. Its best showing is in OpenCL, where it narrows the gap slightly compared to Vulkan, but it still trails by a massive margin. The data indicates that the TITAN BLACK's advantage is not marginal or workload-specific — it is a crushing lead across both available test metrics.

When placed against its own nearest rivals, the R9 M375 holds its ground reasonably well. It sits 0.3% above the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M, and it beats the GeForce GTX 870M by 1.1%. The only rival that edges it out is the GTX 950A, which is 2% faster. This shows that the R9 M375 is a mid-pack mobile GPU, competitive with other laptop-class parts from its era.

The TITAN BLACK's rival placement is different in character. It is only 0.2% ahead of the GeForce GTX 760, 1.7% ahead of the Radeon R7 M380, and it trails the Quadro K5000 by 1.7% and the GTX 960M by 1.8%. Those are tight margins, which suggests the TITAN BLACK's average score of 9,474 is pulled down by its Passmark results — its Geekbench scores are stellar, but the DirectX 10, 11, and 12 tests come in at 47, 73, and 34 respectively, which are far below what its compute numbers would suggest. The Passmark G3D score of 9,184 is respectable, but the overall average suffers from the mixed bag.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, part of AMD's Gem System generation for the R9 M300 series. The TITAN BLACK uses the GK110B chip with Kepler architecture, belonging to NVIDIA's GeForce 700 generation. Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but that is where the similarities end.

The transistor counts reveal the scale difference. The TITAN BLACK packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, while the R9 M375 has only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. That is a 4.7x transistor advantage and a 4.6x die area advantage for NVIDIA. Transistor density is nearly identical — 12.6M / mm² for the TITAN BLACK versus 12.2M / mm² for the R9 M375 — which confirms that the performance gap comes from sheer silicon size, not process efficiency.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the TITAN BLACK. It has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That translates to 4.5x the shaders, 6x the TMUs, and 3x the ROPs. The clock speeds tell a different story: the R9 M375 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost, while the TITAN BLACK is slower at 889 MHz base and 980 MHz boost. AMD's smaller chip clocks higher, but the NVIDIA part's massive resource count overwhelms that advantage.

Memory is another point of divergence. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN BLACK uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s — an 11.7x bandwidth advantage. The memory clock difference is stark: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the AMD part versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA card. The TITAN BLACK also supports higher API versions, with Vulkan 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170, though both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Power delivery is a major differentiator. The TITAN BLACK is rated at 250 W TDP, requires dual-slot cooling, and needs both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, with a suggested 600 W PSU. The R9 M375 has no listed TDP, slot width, or power connector requirements — it is clearly designed for mobile integration where power limits are far more constrained. The physical dimensions reflect this: the TITAN BLACK measures 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 38 mm wide, while the R9 M375 has no listed dimensions, consistent with a soldered laptop part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK scores 27,218 versus the Radeon R9 M375's 10,457, a 61.6% lead for NVIDIA.

Q: How do these cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The TITAN BLACK scores 29,561 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the R9 M375 scores 9,682. The NVIDIA card leads by 67.2%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN BLACK has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life. The R9 M375 was released on May 4, 2015, and the TITAN BLACK was released on February 17, 2014.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The TITAN BLACK has 2,880 shading units, compared to 640 on the R9 M375 — a 4.5x advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The TITAN BLACK has Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the R9 M375 has Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the TITAN BLACK uses GK110B with Kepler. Transistor count is 1,500 million versus 7,080 million, and die size is 123 mm² versus 561 mm². The R9 M375 has a higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 889 MHz, and a higher boost clock at 1015 MHz versus 980 MHz.

Memory specs are completely different: 2 GB DDR3 versus 6 GB GDDR5, 128-bit versus 384-bit bus, and 28.80 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. The compute resources favor NVIDIA heavily: 640 versus 2,880 shading units, 40 versus 240 TMUs, and 16 versus 48 ROPs. Pixel rate is 16.24 GPixel/s for the AMD part versus 58.80 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part. Texture rate is 40.60 GTexel/s versus 235.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 5.645 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specs exist only for the TITAN BLACK: 250 W TDP, dual-slot width, 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, 600 W suggested PSU, and dimensions of 267 mm x 111 mm x 38 mm. The R9 M375 lists no TDP, slot width, power connectors, or dimensions. The TITAN BLACK also has display outputs (2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), while the R9 M375 has none listed. The launch MSRP for the TITAN BLACK was 999 USD; the R9 M375 has no launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK wins in every benchmark category where both cards have data. It dominates OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads, and its architecture provides substantially higher pixel fill rate, texture fill rate, and FP32 throughput. The 6 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 336 GB/s bandwidth is suited for high-resolution textures and memory-intensive workloads. The 2,880 shading units and 240 TMUs make it capable of heavy parallel compute tasks, and the dual-slot cooling solution indicates it can sustain high loads.

The Radeon R9 M375 has no benchmark wins against the TITAN BLACK, but it has strengths in other contexts. Its nearest rival data shows it is competitive with other mobile GPUs — 0.3% above the Quadro K5100M and 0.6% above the Radeon Pro 5300M. Its higher clock speeds relative to the TITAN BLACK (1000 MHz versus 889 MHz base) suggest it can be more efficient per clock, though this does not translate into overall performance. Its lack of listed power requirements means it is designed for mobile platforms where the TITAN BLACK's 250 W TDP would be impossible to accommodate.

For use cases, the TITAN BLACK is the obvious choice for any desktop workstation or gaming rig where power delivery and physical space are available. Its Passmark scores show solid DirectX 9 performance at 133 and G2D at 595, indicating it handles legacy workloads well. The R9 M375 is suited for thin-and-light laptops that need basic GPU acceleration without the power draw or thermal footprint of a high-end part.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK is in a completely different performance class than the AMD Radeon R9 M375. The 61.6% OpenCL gap and 67.2% Vulkan gap are not close calls — they are generational and architectural chasms. Anyone comparing these two cards for a build should understand that the TITAN BLACK is a desktop flagship with a 250 W TDP, 6 GB of GDDR5, and 2,880 shaders, while the R9 M375 is a mobile chip with 2 GB of DDR3 and 640 shaders.

The R9 M375's percentile rank of 48 versus the TITAN BLACK's rank of 46 is misleading. That ranking is based on average benchmark scores, and the TITAN BLACK's average of 9,474 is dragged down by its low Passmark DirectX scores. Its Geekbench scores tell the real story: 27,218 in OpenCL and 29,561 in Vulkan are flagship-level numbers. The R9 M375's average of 10,070 is consistent across its two benchmarks, showing it is a stable but modest performer.

The practical advice is straightforward. If you are building a desktop system with a 600 W PSU, dual-slot clearance, and a need for maximum compute performance, the TITAN BLACK is the only rational choice from this pair. If you are looking at a laptop or a compact system where power draw is a constraint, the R9 M375 is the only viable option — the TITAN BLACK physically cannot fit or run in such a platform. There is no scenario where the R9 M375 outperforms the TITAN BLACK in raw benchmarks, but there are many scenarios where the TITAN BLACK simply cannot be used at all. Choose based on your platform constraints first, and accept that the performance hierarchy is fixed: NVIDIA wins every measurable comparison.