AMD Radeon R9 M375X vs AMD Radeon RX 6500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between these two mobile graphics processors. In the two recorded head-to-head tests, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M wins both without exception, and the margin is substantial.

Starting with Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500M scores 38586 points against the R9 M375X's 8273 points. That translates to a 366.4% advantage, meaning the newer part is roughly four and a half times faster in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap that completely redefines what these two GPUs can do in the same task.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RX 6500M posts 43837 points, while the R9 M375X manages only 8377 points. The delta here is 423.3%, meaning the RX 6500M is over five times faster in Vulkan-based rendering and compute. For context, the R9 M375X's Vulkan score is barely above one-fifth of the RX 6500M's OpenCL score, let alone its Vulkan result.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the RX 6500M sits with an average score of 10362 across all recorded tests, placing it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The R9 M375X, by contrast, has an average of 8325, which lands at the 43rd percentile. While both are mid-pack performers, the RX 6500M's average is 24.5% higher than the R9 M375X's average, and the percentile gap reflects that separation.

The nearest rival data reinforces where each card stands. The RX 6500M's closest competitors include the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (average 10400, delta -0.4%), the AMD Radeon RX 550X (average 10481, delta -1.1%), and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (average 10582, delta -2.1%). The RX 6500M is within 2% of these cards, meaning it trades blows with that tier of hardware. The R9 M375X, on the other hand, sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (average 8265, delta 0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (average 8427, delta -1.2%), and the AMD Radeon 880M (average 8436, delta -1.3%). Its performance class is clearly a step below the RX 6500M's neighborhood.

In every recorded head-to-head metric, the RX 6500M wins outright. The data records 2 wins for the RX 6500M and 0 for the R9 M375X. There is no benchmark in this database where the older card comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has an average benchmark score of 10362, compared to the AMD Radeon R9 M375X's average of 8325. That puts the RX 6500M roughly 24.5% higher on average.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6500M in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RX 6500M scores 43837 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the R9 M375X scores 8377. This gives the RX 6500M a 423.3% advantage in that test.

Q: What percentile rank does each GPU hold?

A: The RX 6500M sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M375X sits at the 43rd percentile. Both are near the middle of the pack, but the RX 6500M is positioned slightly higher.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and what type?

A: The RX 6500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M375X has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6500M has double the capacity and double the bandwidth.

Q: Are there any tests where the R9 M375X wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the R9 M375X does not win any test. The RX 6500M wins all 2 recorded comparisons.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare?

A: The RX 6500M's closest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla C2075, which scores 10400 and is 0.4% behind. The R9 M375X's closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K1200, which scores 8265 and is 0.7% ahead. The gap between these two GPUs is consistent with the gap between their rival clusters.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast and explains the performance chasm. The RX 6500M is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, specifically the Navi 24 chip, while the R9 M375X uses GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip. These are separated by multiple generations of design philosophy.

The manufacturing process tells much of the story. The RX 6500M is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, packing 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The R9 M375X, by contrast, uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a larger 123 mm² die. Its transistor density is just 12.2 million per square millimeter. The newer process allows the RX 6500M to pack over three and a half times more transistors into a smaller physical area.

The RDNA 2.0 architecture brings features that GCN 1.0 simply does not have. The RX 6500M includes 16 ray tracing cores, a capability entirely absent from the R9 M375X. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the R9 M375X tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1). Vulkan support differs as well: the RX 6500M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M375X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6 for both.

The RX 6500M belongs to the Radeon RX 6000 series and the Navi Mobile generation, with the predecessor listed as Polaris Mobile. The R9 M375X comes from the Gem System generation within the R9 M300 series, with the Solar System as its predecessor and Polaris Mobile as its successor. This positions the R9 M375X as an older part that was eventually replaced by the same lineage that produced the RX 6500M.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs differ on nearly every major component. The RX 6500M has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The R9 M375X has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every category, the RX 6500M has at least 60% more hardware, and in the case of ROPs, exactly double.

Clock speeds reflect the architectural and process advantages. The RX 6500M runs at a base clock of 2000 MHz with a boost of 2400 MHz and a game clock of 2191 MHz. The R9 M375X operates at a base of 925 MHz and a boost of 1015 MHz, with no recorded game clock. The RX 6500M's base clock is more than double the R9 M375X's boost clock.

Memory specifications are also divergent. The RX 6500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 at a memory clock of 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed, achieving 144.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 64-bit bus. The R9 M375X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective, achieving 72.00 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus. Despite having half the bus width, the RX 6500M delivers exactly double the bandwidth due to the faster memory technology.

Compute throughput shows the scale of the difference. The RX 6500M delivers 4.915 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 9.830 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (at 2:1 ratio). The R9 M375X manages 1,299.2 GFLOPS of FP32, with no recorded FP16 capability. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the RX 6500M hits 76.80 GPixel/s and 153.6 GTexel/s, while the R9 M375X reaches 16.24 GPixel/s and 40.60 GTexel/s.

The bus interface differs as well. The RX 6500M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the R9 M375X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Power consumption is listed at 50 W for the RX 6500M, with no TDP recorded for the R9 M375X. The RX 6500M is an integrated graphics package with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The R9 M375X has no recorded slot width, power connectors, or display output information in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500M wins everywhere the data records a comparison. In compute-heavy workloads measured by Geekbench OpenCL, it is 366.4% ahead. In Vulkan rendering and compute, it is 423.3% ahead. The average benchmark score favors the RX 6500M by 24.5%, and its percentile ranking is 5 points higher.

For the RX 6500M, the strengths are clear. Its 4 GB GDDR6 memory with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth makes it suitable for modern game assets and compute buffers. The 16 ray tracing cores open the door to hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature the R9 M375X cannot offer. The 6 nm process and 50 W TDP suggest an efficient part that can fit into thin-and-light designs, as indicated by its IGP slot width and lack of power connectors.

The R9 M375X does not win any recorded benchmark. Its best case is that its 128-bit bus width and 2 GB GDDR5 memory provide a different memory topology, but the data shows this does not translate into performance. Its 1,299.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is less than a third of the RX 6500M's 4.915 TFLOPS.

For use cases, the RX 6500M is the pick for anything that touches modern APIs. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility mean it can handle current-generation game workloads and compute tasks. The R9 M375X, with its DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170 support, is limited to older software stacks.

The percentile data places both cards in the middle of the database, but the RX 6500M's 48th percentile versus the R9 M375X's 43rd percentile means the newer card is closer to the upper-middle tier. The nearest rival data confirms this: the RX 6500M competes with cards like the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and AMD Radeon RX 550X, while the R9 M375X competes with the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and GeForce MX330.

The Verdict

The database is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the superior GPU in every recorded measurement. Its 2-0 win record in head-to-head benchmarks, its 24.5% higher average score, and its higher percentile ranking all point to a clear hierarchy.

For users choosing between these two, the decision depends on what software they need to run. The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, making it the appropriate choice for modern games and compute applications that leverage these APIs. Its ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration that the R9 M375X lacks entirely. The 4 GB memory capacity and 144.0 GB/s bandwidth are better suited to current asset sizes.

The R9 M375X is a legacy part. Its GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm process predate many modern features. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support and Vulkan 1.2.170 are sufficient for older titles and basic compute, but the performance ceiling is far lower. The 2 GB memory capacity may be limiting for even moderately sized workloads.

For any new deployment, the RX 6500M is the rational pick. It is faster, more feature-complete, and sits in a higher performance class according to the nearest rival data. The R9 M375X should only be considered if the software environment is strictly limited to legacy APIs and the hardware is already in hand. The data does not support any scenario where the R9 M375X outperforms the RX 6500M.