AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 leads with an average benchmark score of 10761, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 trails at 10070. That is a 6.9% gap in favor of the Quadro.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2200 scores 11431 versus the R9 M375's 10457. The Quadro wins by a 9.3% margin.

Q: Is the Radeon R9 M375 competitive in Vulkan workloads?

A: It is closer but still behind. The Quadro K2200 scores 10090 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the R9 M375 scores 9682. That translates to a 4.2% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Which GPU holds a better percentile rank among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile, one point ahead of the R9 M375's 48th percentile. The ranking difference is narrow, matching the modest performance gap.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The Quadro K2200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus but with only 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare in average score?

A: The Quadro K2200's closest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 450, scores 10804 — just 0.4% higher. The R9 M375's nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, scores 10043 — 0.3% lower.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, also on TSMC's 28 nm node. Both are end-of-life products, but their internal designs diverge significantly.

The Quadro K2200 packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The R9 M375 is smaller in both respects: 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2M per mm². The Quadro's larger transistor budget gives it a structural edge, though both cards feature identical core counts: 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines.

Clock speeds differ subtly. The Quadro K2200 runs at a 1046 MHz base clock and boosts to 1124 MHz. The R9 M375 operates at 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. These clock differences, combined with the transistor disparity, explain why the Quadro achieves higher theoretical throughput: 1,438.7 GFLOPS FP32 versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon. Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern — 44.96 GTexel/s and 17.98 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, versus 40.60 GTexel/s and 16.24 GPixel/s for AMD.

Memory architecture is where the gap widens. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with 5 Gbps effective speed, delivering 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective, capping bandwidth at just 28.80 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the memory type difference is decisive. The Quadro also supports a wider API set: Vulkan 1.4 versus the Radeon's 1.2.170, while both offer DirectX 12 (11_0 for NVIDIA, 11_1 for AMD) and OpenGL 4.6.

Power and physical specifications are largely one-sided. The Quadro K2200 has a 68 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. It measures 202 mm long and 111 mm tall. The R9 M375 has no listed TDP, slot width, power connector, or dimension data — it is a mobile-oriented part. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs exist only on the Quadro: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins both recorded benchmarks outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 11431 against the Radeon's 10457 — a 9.3% victory. The Vulkan test narrows the margin but still favors NVIDIA: 10090 versus 9682, a 4.2% lead. The Quadro takes 2 wins, the Radeon takes none.

These results align with the theoretical specifications. The Quadro's 9.3% OpenCL win roughly mirrors its 10.7% FP32 advantage (1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS). The smaller Vulkan gap of 4.2% suggests the Radeon's GCN architecture handles compute workloads reasonably well, but the memory bandwidth deficit — 80.19 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s — likely constrains sustained performance.

Context from nearest rivals reinforces the picture. The Quadro K2200's average score of 10761 places it within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10804) and 1.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10883). It beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10690) by 0.7% and the Radeon RX 6600S (10629) by 1.2%. The R9 M375's average of 10070 puts it 0.3% above the Quadro K5100M (10043) and 0.6% above the Radeon Pro 5300M (10013), but 1.1% below the GeForce GTX 870M (9959) and 2% below the GeForce GTX 950A (10273).

The percentile standings reflect this tight grouping. Both cards sit near the median of all GPUs — the Quadro at the 49th percentile, the Radeon at the 48th. Neither is a high-flyer, but the Quadro consistently edges ahead in every measured category.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the stronger GPU. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average score (10761 versus 10070), and ranks one percentile higher among all GPUs. The 9.3% OpenCL and 4.2% Vulkan leads are not overwhelming, but they are consistent.

The Radeon R9 M375 is not without merit. Its GCN 1.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_1) — one revision newer than the Quadro's 11_0 — and its Vulkan score of 9682 shows it can handle modern API workloads. However, its 2 GB DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth is a fundamental bottleneck. The Quadro offers double the memory capacity and nearly three times the bandwidth.

For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL workloads, the Quadro's higher FP32 throughput (1,438.7 GFLOPS) and superior memory subsystem make it the clear choice. For Vulkan-based applications, the margin narrows to 4.2%, but the Quadro still wins. The R9 M375's nearest rival comparison shows it is competitive within its own tier — 0.3% above the Quadro K5100M — but that tier is simply lower than the Quadro's.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the Quadro K2200 for better performance across the board. The Radeon only makes sense if the PCIe 3.0 interface or the slightly newer DirectX feature level matters more than raw speed, which the benchmark data does not support.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification except core counts and process node. Both use 28 nm TSMC fabrication and feature 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Beyond that, the differences are stark:

• Transistors: Quadro has 1,870 million; Radeon has 1,500 million.
• Die size: Quadro is 148 mm²; Radeon is 123 mm².
• Base clock: Quadro runs at 1046 MHz; Radeon at 1000 MHz.
• Boost clock: Quadro boosts to 1124 MHz; Radeon to 1015 MHz.
• Memory size: Quadro has 4 GB; Radeon has 2 GB.
• Memory type: Quadro uses GDDR5; Radeon uses DDR3.
• Memory speed: Quadro runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective); Radeon at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).
• Memory bandwidth: Quadro delivers 80.19 GB/s; Radeon delivers 28.80 GB/s.
• FP32 performance: Quadro achieves 1,438.7 GFLOPS; Radeon achieves 1,299.2 GFLOPS.
• Pixel rate: Quadro hits 17.98 GPixel/s; Radeon hits 16.24 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: Quadro reaches 44.96 GTexel/s; Radeon reaches 40.60 GTexel/s.
• TDP: Quadro is rated at 68 W; Radeon has no listed TDP.
• Bus interface: Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16; Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Vulkan support: Quadro supports 1.4; Radeon supports 1.2.170.
• DirectX support: Quadro supports 12 (11_0); Radeon supports 12 (11_1).
• Release date: Quadro launched 2014-07-21; Radeon launched 2015-05-04.
• Physical dimensions: Quadro is 202 mm long and 111 mm tall; Radeon has no listed dimensions.
• Display outputs: Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2; Radeon has none listed.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins in all benchmark scenarios recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 974 points (9.3%). In Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 408 points (4.2%). Its average benchmark score is 691 points higher, and it occupies a higher percentile rank. For any workload that relies on FP32 compute, memory bandwidth, or texture fill, the Quadro is the superior choice. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory also provides more headroom for large datasets.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. However, it does hold advantages in two non-performance areas. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface doubles the bus bandwidth of the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16 connection, which could matter for data transfer-heavy tasks. It also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the Quadro's 12 (11_0), offering a slightly more recent feature level. Its smaller die (123 mm² versus 148 mm²) and lower transistor count suggest it may be more power-efficient per transistor, though no TDP data exists to confirm this.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, memory capacity, or bandwidth, the Quadro K2200 is the only rational pick. For users who need the latest PCIe generation or the marginally newer DirectX feature set — and can accept a 6.9% average performance deficit — the Radeon R9 M375 has niche appeal. The benchmark data, however, offers no scenario where the Radeon wins on performance.