AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 2015 era, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process. The data shows a narrow but consistent edge for the AMD part across the two available benchmark tests, while the NVIDIA part counters with a substantially larger memory footprint and higher raw compute throughput. The R9 M375 wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, yet the M2000M’s architectural and memory advantages make it the more balanced professional option. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and the specific use cases where each GPU holds an advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the primary compute benchmark in this comparison, and the AMD Radeon R9 M375 takes the win with a score of 10457 against the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M’s 10057. This is a 4% delta, which is the largest performance gap recorded between the two parts in any test. For context, the R9 M375’s average benchmark score of 10070 places it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the M2000M’s average of 9832 sits at the 47th percentile. The 4% OpenCL advantage is consistent with the R9 M375’s position relative to its nearest rivals—it is 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10043) and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10013), but 2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10273).

In the Vulkan test, the margin shrinks considerably. The R9 M375 scores 9682, edging out the M2000M’s 9606 by a mere 0.8%. This narrower delta suggests that the M2000M’s Maxwell architecture, which supports Vulkan 1.4 compared to the R9 M375’s Vulkan 1.2.170, closes the gap in API-specific workloads. Still, the AMD part wins both tests, giving it a clean 2-0 record in the head-to-head comparison. The M2000M’s rival comparison shows it is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846), 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803), and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9724), indicating that its performance sits in a tightly clustered mid-range band.

It is worth remembering the R9 M375’s FP32 compute rating is 1,299.2 GFLOPS, while the M2000M is rated higher at 1,455.4 GFLOPS. Despite this theoretical disadvantage, the AMD part still outperforms in the actual benchmark scores, pointing to differences in driver optimization, memory subsystem behavior, or workload characteristics that favor the GCN 1.0 architecture. The M2000M also has higher pixel and texture rates—18.19 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s and 40.60 GTexel/s respectively—yet this does not translate into a benchmark victory.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD Radeon R9 M375 is the faster GPU in synthetic compute tests. It wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks, and its average score of 10070 is 2.4% higher than the M2000M’s 9832. For users whose primary concern is raw benchmark performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the R9 M375 is the clear choice. Its 4% OpenCL lead is the most decisive margin in this comparison, and it also holds a percentile advantage over the M2000M, ranking at 48 versus 47.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is not without merit. It offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory compared to the R9 M375’s 2 GB of DDR3, which is a significant capacity advantage for large datasets or multi-application workflows. The M2000M’s memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s is nearly three times the R9 M375’s 28.80 GB/s, and its 5 Gbps effective memory speed dwarfs the AMD part’s 1800 Mbps. For memory-bound tasks or scenarios where GPU memory capacity is a limiting factor, the M2000M is the superior option despite losing the benchmark comparison.

The M2000M also carries a defined 55 W TDP and an MXM Module slot width, whereas the R9 M375 has no listed TDP or slot width, making the NVIDIA part the more predictable choice for system integration. If the workload is purely about benchmark scores, pick the R9 M375. If memory capacity, bandwidth, or a standardized power envelope matter more, the M2000M is the data-backed alternative.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on the same 28 nm TSMC process node, but their underlying architectures diverge significantly. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Gem System (R9 M300) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture, part of the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. Both are end-of-life products, with the R9 M375 releasing on 2015-05-04 and the M2000M following on 2015-12-02.

The transistor counts differ notably: the M2000M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the R9 M375 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. This gives the M2000M a higher transistor density of 12.6M / mm² versus the R9 M375’s 12.2M / mm². The M2000M also has a larger die, which likely contributes to its higher memory bandwidth capabilities.

Both GPUs have identical core configurations: 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The clock speeds favor NVIDIA, with the M2000M running at a base of 1098 MHz and boost of 1137 MHz, compared to the R9 M375’s base of 1000 MHz and boost of 1015 MHz. The M2000M’s memory clock of 1253 MHz also exceeds the R9 M375’s 900 MHz.

The memory subsystems are the most substantial architectural difference. The M2000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but only reaches 28.80 GB/s. This is a massive gap in memory performance that the benchmarks do not fully capture, as the compute tests favor the AMD part despite its weaker memory. In terms of API support, the R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the M2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The M2000M’s higher Vulkan version may explain its closer margin in that specific test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has an average benchmark score of 10070, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M’s 9832.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two GPUs?

A: The largest gap is in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the R9 M375 scores 10457 versus the M2000M’s 10057, a 4% difference in favor of AMD.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M have any memory advantages?

A: Yes, the M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 with only 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: Both GPUs have identical shading unit counts at 640, along with 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has a boost clock of 1137 MHz, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 has a boost clock of 1015 MHz.

Q: What is the process node for both GPUs?

A: Both the AMD Radeon R9 M375 and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M are manufactured on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 wins in all benchmark comparisons, making it the clear choice for raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 10457 is 4% higher than the M2000M’s 10057, and its Vulkan score of 9682 is 0.8% higher. For applications that rely heavily on OpenCL compute or Vulkan rendering, the R9 M375 is the data-backed winner. Its average score of 10070 also places it above the M2000M’s 9832, reinforcing its overall performance lead. The R9 M375’s percentile rank of 48 versus the M2000M’s 47 further confirms its slight edge in the broader GPU landscape.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 4 GB of GDDR5 and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, it offers more than double the memory capacity and nearly triple the bandwidth of the R9 M375. For workloads that involve large textures, complex 3D scenes, or data-intensive compute tasks, the M2000M’s memory subsystem is a decisive advantage. Its higher FP32 rating of 1,455.4 GFLOPS also suggests better theoretical peak compute, even if the benchmarks do not reflect it. The M2000M also has a defined 55 W TDP and MXM Module form factor, making it a more integrable solution for professional mobile workstations.

In terms of API support, the M2000M’s Vulkan 1.4 support is more modern than the R9 M375’s Vulkan 1.2.170, which may benefit future software compatibility. The M2000M’s 148 mm² die and 1,870 million transistors also indicate a more complex design, though this does not translate to benchmark wins. Ultimately, the R9 M375 is the winner for pure benchmark scores, while the M2000M is the winner for memory-bound tasks, theoretical compute, and system integration predictability.