AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 and NVIDIA Quadro 6000 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by roughly five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a narrow victory for the AMD part in the only shared benchmark, with the R9 M375 scoring 10,457 points against the Quadro 6000’s 9,846 points in Geekbench OpenCL, a 6.2% difference. However, their underlying specifications and intended workloads differ dramatically, making a simple performance comparison insufficient for a purchasing decision.

The Verdict

The benchmark data suggests these two GPUs serve fundamentally different masters. The AMD Radeon R9 M375, with its 2015 release date and GCN 1.0 architecture, is the better choice for compute workloads that leverage modern API features. Its 6.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is modest but consistent, and it also delivers a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,682, indicating robust support for contemporary graphics interfaces. The Quadro 6000, released in 2010, offers no Vulkan score at all, signaling its age.

For users prioritizing raw memory capacity and bandwidth, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 is the clear selection. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus provides 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth, dwarfing the R9 M375’s 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, which offers only 28.80 GB/s. This makes the Quadro 6000 the appropriate pick for datasets that exceed 2 GB, despite its lower compute scores. The R9 M375’s higher transistor density (12.2M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm²) and newer process node (28 nm versus 40 nm) point to better efficiency, but the Quadro 6000’s 204 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest it was built for sustained, professional workloads where power draw is secondary.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using the Tropo chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, also from TSMC but on an older 40 nm node. This results in 3,100 million transistors spread across a massive 529 mm² die, with a lower density of 5.9M per mm².

The compute core configurations diverge significantly. The R9 M375 features 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 6000 counters with 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This means the AMD part has more raw shader throughput, while the NVIDIA part has more texture and pixel processing capability. The FP32 performance reflects this: the R9 M375 delivers 1,299.2 GFLOPS versus the Quadro 6000’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS. Pixel rates are nearly identical (16.24 GPixel/s for AMD versus 16.07 GPixel/s for NVIDIA), but the texture rate favors AMD at 40.60 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture presents the clearest contrast. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 6000 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) on a 384-bit bus, delivering 143.4 GB/s—roughly five times the bandwidth. The R9 M375 supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 6000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16, reflecting their respective release periods. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1 for AMD, 11_0 for NVIDIA) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the AMD part lists Vulkan 1.2.170 support.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 wins in raw compute throughput and modern API support. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 10,457 places it 6.2% ahead of the Quadro 6000, and its Vulkan score of 9,682 demonstrates functional capability in newer graphics workloads. The data shows the R9 M375 also has a higher average benchmark score of 10,070 compared to the Quadro 6000’s 9,846. In terms of shading, the R9 M375’s 640 shading units versus 448, combined with its 1,299.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance, make it the superior choice for shader-bound compute tasks.

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins decisively in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, it offers three times the capacity of the R9 M375’s 2 GB partition. Its 143.4 GB/s bandwidth is roughly five times greater, making it the appropriate choice for workloads involving large textures, high-resolution frame buffers, or data sets that exceed 2 GB. The Quadro 6000’s 48 ROPs versus 16 give it a theoretical advantage in pixel-heavy operations, though its slightly lower pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s) suggests the R9 M375’s higher clock speeds compensate. The Quadro 6000’s dual-slot design and 248 mm length indicate a workstation-oriented form factor, while its 6-pin plus 8-pin power connectors and 550 W suggested PSU point to a power-hungry but potentially more stable platform for sustained loads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 scores 10,457, which is 6.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 6000’s 9,846.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 provides 143.4 GB/s from its 384-bit GDDR5 interface, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 provides 28.80 GB/s from its 128-bit DDR3 interface.

Q: Do both GPUs support Vulkan?

A: No. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,682. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 lists no Vulkan support in its API specifications.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has 640 shading units, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 6000’s 448 shading units.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon R9 M375 wins with a score of 10,457 against the NVIDIA Quadro 6000’s 9,846. This represents a 6.2% delta in favor of the AMD part. While this is a clear victory, the margin is relatively narrow, suggesting that the two GPUs are broadly comparable in OpenCL compute tasks despite their architectural differences.

The R9 M375’s advantage can be attributed to its higher FP32 throughput (1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS) and greater texture rate (40.60 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s). However, the Quadro 6000’s superior memory bandwidth (143.4 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s) may allow it to perform better in memory-bound workloads, even if the synthetic score does not reflect this. The R9 M375’s nearest rivals provide additional context: it sits 0.3% above the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10,043), 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013), and 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A by 2% (10,273). The Quadro 6000, meanwhile, is 0.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832), 0.4% above the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803), and 0.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M by 1.1% (9,959).

These rival positions show that the R9 M375 competes in a slightly higher performance tier, with an average benchmark score of 10,070 placing it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro 6000’s average of 9,846 places it at the 47th percentile. The single head-to-head win for the R9 M375, combined with its Vulkan support and higher shading unit count, makes it the more capable modern compute device. The Quadro 6000’s strengths remain its memory capacity and bandwidth, which are not captured in the OpenCL benchmark but are critical for certain professional applications. The data ultimately shows a close contest in compute, with the AMD part edging ahead on performance while the NVIDIA part offers superior memory resources.