AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on a 28 nm TSMC process, yet they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The R9 M375 is a mainstream GPU from AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, while the K5100M is a professional-grade Kepler part from NVIDIA. Benchmark data shows they land within 0.3% of each other in average score, making their overall performance nearly identical, but their individual strengths and specifications diverge sharply. The data presents a classic contest between a smaller, higher-clocked chip and a larger, wider-memory part, with each excelling in distinct areas.

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has an average benchmark score of 10070, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 10043. The R9 M375 leads by a margin of 0.3%, placing them in a statistical tie, and both hold the 48th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL test, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. It scores 11771 against the R9 M375’s 10457, which represents an 11.2% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The K5100M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth — exactly four times the bandwidth of the AMD part.

Q: How do their transistor counts and die sizes differ?

A: The K5100M packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the R9 M375 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The NVIDIA chip is more than twice as large in both transistor count and die area, though their transistor densities are nearly equal at 12.2M / mm² for AMD and 12.0M / mm² for NVIDIA.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The R9 M375 operates at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz. The K5100M is locked at 771 MHz for both base and boost, making the AMD chip roughly 30% higher-clocked in boost terms.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has a listed TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has no TDP figure listed in the data, so a direct wattage comparison is not possible.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using the Tropo chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The K5100M’s GK104 is a much larger design, with 3,540 million transistors spread across 294 mm². The R9 M375’s Tropo chip contains just 1,500 million transistors on 123 mm². This size disparity translates directly into resource counts: the NVIDIA part features 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the AMD part has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every compute resource category, the K5100M has more than double the hardware of the R9 M375.

Clock speeds invert this relationship. The R9 M375 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost, while the K5100M is fixed at 771 MHz for both. Despite the NVIDIA chip’s massive resource advantage, the AMD card’s higher clocks partially compensate. The resulting fill rates show the K5100M still leads: 24.67 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s for the R9 M375, and 98.69 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s. The K5100M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 115.2 GB/s. The NVIDIA card offers four times the memory capacity and exactly four times the bandwidth. API support shows minor differences: AMD lists DirectX 12 (11_1) while NVIDIA lists DirectX 12 (11_0), with both supporting OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan (1.2.170 for AMD, 1.2.175 for NVIDIA). The bus interface also differs, with the R9 M375 using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the K5100M using MXM-B (3.0).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a clear winner. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11771, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 scores 10457. This gives the K5100M an 11.2% victory in raw compute throughput. The margin is meaningful — it is not a close race in this specific workload.

However, the broader benchmark picture complicates the narrative. The R9 M375’s average benchmark score of 10070 actually edges out the K5100M’s 10043, a 0.3% difference. This suggests that while the K5100M dominates in OpenCL, the R9 M375 may perform better in other untested workloads or that its higher clocks benefit certain tasks. The R9 M375 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9682, while the K5100M has a Geekbench Metal score of 8315 — but these are different API tests, so they cannot be directly compared.

The nearest rival data reinforces the tight overall competition. The R9 M375’s nearest rivals include the K5100M at a 0.3% gap, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M at 0.6%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 1.1%. The K5100M’s nearest rivals include the R9 M375 at -0.3%, the Radeon Pro 5300M at 0.3%, and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 2%. Both GPUs sit in a cluster of similarly performing mobile parts, with the GTX 950A being the only rival that beats the R9 M375, doing so by 2%.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The most glaring differences are in memory: the R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, while the K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth scales accordingly, from 28.80 GB/s to 115.2 GB/s.

Compute resources show a similar pattern. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K5100M has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate and texture rate both favor the NVIDIA part: 24.67 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, and 98.69 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1,299.2 GFLOPS for the AMD card versus 2.369 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card, a difference of roughly 82% in favor of the K5100M.

Clock speeds are the one area where the R9 M375 leads. Its base clock of 1000 MHz and boost of 1015 MHz dwarf the K5100M’s 771 MHz base and boost. The AMD part also has a higher transistor density at 12.2M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm², though both are close.

Physical and platform specifications differ as well. The R9 M375 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K5100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and an MXM Module slot. The K5100M lists a 100 W TDP and no power connectors; the R9 M375 has no TDP data. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for the NVIDIA part, while the AMD card’s outputs are unspecified. Release dates differ by roughly two years, with the R9 M375 launching in May 2015 and the K5100M in July 2013. Their generations reflect this: the R9 M375 belongs to the Gem System (R9 M300) family, while the K5100M belongs to Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M).

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins decisively in raw compute and memory-bound workloads. Its 11.2% OpenCL advantage, 4x memory bandwidth, and 82% higher FP32 throughput make it the stronger choice for tasks that saturate the GPU’s compute units. The 1536 shading units and 128 TMUs provide a foundation for heavy parallel workloads. The 8 GB frame buffer is also a clear asset for large datasets or high-resolution textures, a capability the 2 GB R9 M375 cannot match.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 wins in the aggregate benchmark average, holding a 0.3% edge over the K5100M. Its higher clock speeds — 1000 MHz base versus 771 MHz — likely contribute to this in workloads that are latency-sensitive or clock-bound rather than throughput-bound. The R9 M375 also carries a Vulkan score of 9682, and its smaller die and lower transistor count suggest it achieves its results more efficiently in terms of silicon area. For users whose workloads favor the Geekbench OpenCL test specifically, the K5100M is the clear pick; for those looking at the broader average across multiple benchmark types, the R9 M375 holds a marginal lead.

Both GPUs sit at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, and their nearest rival lists overlap heavily. The R9 M375 and K5100M are effectively peers in overall performance, with the NVIDIA part winning on paper specifications and the AMD part winning on clock speed and average score. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload is compute-heavy (favoring the K5100M) or more varied and clock-sensitive (favoring the R9 M375). The data shows a tie in percentile ranking, a 0.3% gap in average score, and an 11.2% gap in the one direct benchmark — a nuanced picture that defies a single winner.