AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 and NVIDIA Quadro K5000 represent two distinct approaches to mobile and workstation graphics, separated by nearly three years of GPU evolution. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the specifics of each card’s architecture and feature set reveal a more nuanced picture than raw scores alone. The Quadro K5000, built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, consistently outperforms the R9 M375 in compute benchmarks, yet the Radeon counters with superior API support and a far more efficient transistor density. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, answers common questions, and delivers a verdict based strictly on the provided benchmark data and specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs were evaluated in two shared compute workloads, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 emerged victorious in both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K5000 scored 11,418 against the Radeon R9 M375’s 10,457, a delta of -8.4% from the AMD card’s perspective. This means the Quadro outperformed the Radeon by roughly 9.2% in raw compute throughput. The margin widens considerably in the Vulkan test, where the Quadro K5000 posted 11,169 versus the R9 M375’s 9,682, yielding a -13.3% delta for AMD. That translates to a 15.3% advantage for NVIDIA in Vulkan, a significant gap that highlights architectural efficiency differences in modern graphics APIs.

The Quadro K5000’s wins are not marginal. Its OpenCL score is 961 points higher than the Radeon’s, and its Vulkan advantage is 1,487 points. These are substantial differences, but the R9 M375 does not cede ground everywhere. The AMD card’s average benchmark score across all tests is 10,070, which places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K5000’s average score is 9,637, putting it in the 46th percentile. This is a critical anomaly: despite losing both head-to-head tests, the R9 M375 has a higher average score and percentile ranking. The explanation lies in the benchmark suite composition—the Radeon’s two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan) yield a higher mean than the Quadro’s three tests (Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan). The Quadro’s Metal score of 6,324 drags its average down, while the R9 M375 has no Metal result to penalize it.

Looking at nearest rivals, the R9 M375’s average score of 10,070 sits just 0.3% above the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10,043) and 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013). It is 1.1% ahead of the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959) but trails the GeForce GTX 950A (10,273) by 2%. The Quadro K5000’s average of 9,637 is nearly identical to the GeForce GTX 960M (9,645, -0.1%), the Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653, -0.2%), and the Quadro P4000 (9,665, -0.3%). It lags the Tesla C2070 (9,716) by 0.8%. These rival comparisons show both cards clustering tightly in the mid-range compute spectrum, but the R9 M375’s percentile advantage (48 vs. 46) is consistent with its higher average score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins with a score of 11,418, which is 8.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M375’s 10,457. This represents a 961-point advantage for NVIDIA in raw compute throughput.

Q: Does the Radeon R9 M375 win any benchmark against the Quadro K5000?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the R9 M375 and two wins for the Quadro K5000. The Radeon’s only advantage is in aggregate average score (10,070 vs. 9,637), which is skewed because it lacks a Metal benchmark result.

Q: How does the Quadro K5000’s Vulkan performance compare?

A: The Quadro K5000 scores 11,169 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the R9 M375’s 9,682 by 13.3%. That is a 1,487-point lead, making Vulkan the larger margin of victory for NVIDIA.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The R9 M375 has an average score of 10,070, while the Quadro K5000 averages 9,637. The Radeon is 433 points higher, despite losing both direct comparisons, due to the Quadro’s lower Metal score.

Q: How do these cards rank against their closest competitors?

A: The R9 M375 is 0.3% above the Quadro K5100M and 2% below the GeForce GTX 950A. The Quadro K5000 is 0.1% below the GeForce GTX 960M and 0.8% below the Tesla C2070. Both cards occupy a narrow performance band within 2% of their nearest rivals.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon’s DirectX 12 (11_1) is a higher feature level, while NVIDIA’s Vulkan version is slightly newer.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice for compute-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro K5000. It wins both shared benchmarks by margins of 8.4% and 13.3%, and its higher texture rate (90.37 GTexel/s vs. 40.60 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (22.59 GPixel/s vs. 16.24 GPixel/s) reinforce its dominance in fill-rate-limited tasks. The Quadro’s 1,536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units dwarf the Radeon’s 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, explaining the performance gap in parallel workloads. For users running OpenCL or Vulkan applications, the Quadro K5000 is the superior choice based solely on these results.

However, the AMD Radeon R9 M375 holds its own in specific contexts. Its higher average benchmark score (10,070 vs. 9,637) and better percentile ranking (48th vs. 46th) suggest it is more consistent across a broader test suite, even if it loses the direct comparisons. The Radeon also offers a newer DirectX feature level (12 (11_1) vs. 12 (11_0)), which may matter for forward-looking software compatibility. Its higher clock speeds (1,000 MHz base vs. 706 MHz) and superior transistor density (12.2M / mm² vs. 12.0M / mm²) indicate a more modern design, though these do not translate into benchmark wins.

For a workstation user prioritizing raw compute performance, the Quadro K5000 is the pick. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus (172.8 GB/s bandwidth) provides twice the memory capacity and six times the bandwidth of the R9 M375’s 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus (28.80 GB/s). For a mobile or embedded user who needs broader API compatibility and a higher aggregate score, the R9 M375 is defensible, but it loses every direct performance test. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro K5000 wins on performance, while the R9 M375 wins on modern features and aggregate consistency.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply in memory subsystem and compute resources. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing only 28.80 GB/s. This sixfold bandwidth gap is the single largest specification difference and directly explains the Quadro’s performance edge in memory-intensive workloads.

Core counts show a similarly lopsided comparison. The Quadro K5000 packs 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the R9 M375’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 2.4x advantage in shading units and 3.2x advantage in TMUs is reflected in the texture rate (90.37 vs. 40.60 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (22.59 vs. 16.24 GPixel/s). Clock speeds invert this trend: the R9 M375 runs at 1,000 MHz base and 1,015 MHz boost, while the Quadro K5000 is locked at 706 MHz for both. The Radeon’s higher clocks partially compensate for fewer cores, but not enough to overcome the NVIDIA card’s raw resources.

The Quadro K5000 has a 122 W TDP and requires a 300 W PSU, occupying a dual-slot form factor with a 1x 6-pin power connector and measuring 267 mm in length. The R9 M375 lists no TDP, slot width, power connector, or dimensions, indicating it is designed for mobile integration. The Quadro offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the R9 M375 lists no display outputs. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R9 M375 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Finally, the Quadro K5000 has a listed launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, which is stated once here for reference.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using the Tropo chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 uses Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a density of 12.0M / mm². The Radeon’s slightly higher density reflects its newer design, but the Quadro’s larger die provides more absolute compute resources.

The R9 M375 belongs to the Gem System (R9 M300) generation and is part of the Solar System predecessor line with a Polaris Mobile successor. The Quadro K5000 is from the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell. The Radeon released on 2015-05-04, while the Quadro launched on 2012-08-16, a gap of roughly 33 months. Both are end-of-life products.

Feature sets diverge in memory type and API support. The R9 M375 uses DDR3 memory, while the Quadro K5000 uses GDDR5. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon’s DirectX 12 (11_1) is one feature level higher, while the Quadro’s Vulkan version is incrementally newer. Neither card supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as both have null values for RT cores and tensor cores. The R9 M375’s FP32 throughput is 1,299.2 GFLOPS, compared to the Quadro K5000’s 2.169 TFLOPS, a 67% advantage for NVIDIA. Neither card lists FP16 performance. The Quadro’s 2.169 TFLOPS FP32 output is the decisive architectural advantage, translating directly into its benchmark wins.