AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 represent two very different eras and purposes in the GPU landscape. The data shows a decisive performance gulf, driven by fundamental architectural and specification gaps. While the R9 M375 is an end-of-life mobile chip from 2015, the P4000 is a professional workstation card from 2017, and benchmark results indicate the latter is in a completely different performance class.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two cards is stark, with the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 winning both available head-to-head tests by a wide margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P4000 scores 36,212 against the R9 M375’s 10,457. That is a delta of -71.1% from the perspective of the AMD card, meaning the P4000 delivers roughly 3.5 times the raw compute performance in this workload. The gap widens further in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the P4000 posts 41,786 versus 9,682 for the R9 M375, representing a -76.8% delta. This indicates the NVIDIA card is over four times faster in this API, showcasing a massive advantage in modern graphics workloads.

The P4000’s dominance is not limited to these two tests. Its broader benchmark suite shows scores of 11,466 in Passmark G3D and 4,913 in Passmark GPU Compute, figures that dwarf the AMD card’s entire benchmark portfolio. The R9 M375 has no corresponding scores in these tests, but its average benchmark score of 10,070 is less than the P4000’s G3D score alone. Interestingly, the P4000’s average benchmark score across all its tests is 9,665, which is slightly lower than the R9 M375’s average of 10,070. This is a statistical artifact of the different test suites, as the P4000’s lowest scores (like 40 in Passmark DirectX 12 and 66 in Passmark DirectX 10) pull its average down, while the R9 M375 only has two relatively high Geekbench scores. The raw head-to-head data, however, leaves no doubt about which card is faster.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process technologies, explaining the performance disparity. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older process node is comparatively large and inefficient. The chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a die size of 123 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip based on the Pascal architecture, built on a much more advanced 16 nm process, also at TSMC. This newer node allows for a significantly more complex chip: 7,200 million transistors packed into a 314 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The P4000’s chip is not only physically larger but also nearly five times more dense in terms of transistor count.

The core configurations amplify this architectural gap. The R9 M375 is equipped with 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The P4000, by contrast, has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This means the P4000 has nearly three times the shading units and seven times the ROPs, directly translating to higher pixel and texture throughput. The pixel rate of the P4000 is 94.72 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s for the R9 M375, and its texture rate is 165.8 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows the same trend, with the P4000 delivering 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against the R9 M375’s 1,299.2 GFLOPS. The P4000 also supports FP16 at 82.88 GFLOPS, a feature entirely absent from the AMD card’s specifications.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The R9 M375 features 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The P4000, on the other hand, has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. This is an 8.4x increase in memory bandwidth, which is critical for high-resolution textures and complex compute tasks. The P4000’s memory clock is 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), while the R9 M375 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Clock speeds for the core also favor the NVIDIA card, with a base of 1202 MHz and boost up to 1480 MHz, versus 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost for the AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins in every measurable category. There are zero head-to-head wins for the AMD Radeon R9 M375. The P4000 is the clear choice for any workload that demands raw compute power, high memory bandwidth, or modern API support. Its 8 GB of VRAM and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets, high-resolution rendering, and professional CAD or simulation tasks. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also position it for multi-monitor professional setups.

The R9 M375, despite being comprehensively outclassed, does have a niche. Its lower specifications and older architecture mean it likely draws less power, though no TDP is listed for the AMD card. It is a smaller chip (123 mm² versus 314 mm²) and was designed for the mobile R9 M300 series, indicating a focus on basic laptop graphics rather than heavy compute. Its 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and 2 GB memory are adequate for older games or light productivity, but the data shows it is not competitive with the P4000 in any benchmark. The P4000’s nearest rivals in the database, such as the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (0.1% delta) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (0.2% delta), are all within a few percentage points of its average score, whereas the R9 M375’s rivals like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (-2% delta) are similarly close to its own score. This confirms that each card is in a distinct performance tier relative to its peers.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is significantly faster, scoring 36,212 compared to the AMD Radeon R9 M375’s 10,457, a delta of -71.1% for the AMD card.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth from its 8 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. The R9 M375 has 28.80 GB/s from its 2 GB DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the architecture and process node differences?

A: The R9 M375 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, while the P4000 uses the Pascal architecture on a 16 nm process. The P4000’s chip has 7,200 million transistors versus 1,500 million for the R9 M375.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmarks against the P4000?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks available, the P4000 wins both the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The data shows zero wins for the AMD Radeon R9 M375.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The R9 M375 has an average benchmark score of 10,070, while the P4000 has an average of 9,665. However, this is misleading because the P4000 runs a wider range of tests, including demanding DirectX 12 and compute workloads, which lower its average.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 1,792 shading units, compared to 640 for the Radeon R9 M375. This contributes to the P4000’s much higher FP32 compute of 5.304 TFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M375 | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Tropo | GP104 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1202 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1015 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 243.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 40 | 112 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.24 GPixel/s | 94.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 40.60 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,299.2 GFLOPS | 5.304 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | N/A | 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | N/A | 105 W |

| Slot Width | N/A | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | N/A | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | N/A | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | N/A | 241 mm (9.5 inches) x 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2017-02-05 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 815 USD |