AMD Radeon R9 M375X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M375X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 represent two vastly different tiers of GPU hardware, separated not just by brand but by fundamental design goals. The data shows a decisive performance gap, with the GTX 980 dominating every benchmark where both cards appear. However, the R9 M375X holds its own as a low-power, mobile-oriented part, making the comparison less about raw speed and more about intended use case.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two head-to-head results available are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 scores 34,676, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X manages only 8,273. That is a delta of -76.1% for the AMD part, meaning the GTX 980 is roughly 4.2 times faster in this compute workload. The margin is enormous, reflecting the sheer scale of the NVIDIA chip’s resources. The GTX 980 also wins in Geekbench Vulkan, posting 22,543 against the R9 M375X’s 8,377, a delta of -62.8%. While the Vulkan gap is smaller in percentage terms than OpenCL, it is still a landslide victory for NVIDIA.

Interpreting these scores against the broader field adds context. The R9 M375X’s average benchmark score is 8,325, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (8,265, +0.7%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427, -1.2%), AMD Radeon 880M (8,436, -1.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, -1.6%). This positions the R9 M375X as a mid-pack performer, trading blows with older desktop and modern entry-level mobile parts. The GTX 980, despite a similar 43rd percentile, has an average score of 8,167 — slightly lower than the R9 M375X’s average. This is an anomaly explained by its benchmark mix, which includes heavy 3DMark and PassMark tests that pull the average down. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8,135, +0.4%), AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8,129, +0.5%), NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8,099, +0.8%), and NVIDIA GRID K2 (8,080, +1.1%). Notably, the GTX 980’s rivals are all lower-tier mobile or workstation cards, suggesting its average is skewed by tests that favor lesser hardware, not by a lack of raw capability.

The head-to-head numbers tell the real story. In OpenCL, the GTX 980’s 34,676 is nearly four times the R9 M375X’s score, a margin that dwarfs any rival comparison above. In Vulkan, the GTX 980’s 22,543 is more than 2.5 times the AMD’s output. These are not close contests; they are class differences made measurable.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 wins decisively, scoring 34,676 against the AMD Radeon R9 M375X’s 8,273, a delta of -76.1% for the AMD card.

Q: How does the R9 M375X compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200?

A: The R9 M375X has an average benchmark score of 8,325, which is 0.7% higher than the Quadro K1200’s 8,265, making it a marginal winner in that pairing.

Q: Is the GTX 980’s average benchmark score higher than the R9 M375X’s?

A: No. The GTX 980’s average is 8,167, which is lower than the R9 M375X’s 8,325. This is due to the GTX 980’s benchmark set including 3DMark and PassMark tests that depress its average, despite its far superior head-to-head results.

Q: What is the GTX 980’s standing among its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 980 leads its nearest rivals, with a 0.4% edge over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8,135), a 0.5% edge over the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8,129), a 0.8% edge over the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8,099), and a 1.1% edge over the NVIDIA GRID K2 (8,080).

Q: Does the R9 M375X win any head-to-head benchmark against the GTX 980?

A: No. The data shows the R9 M375X with zero wins across the two head-to-head tests, while the GTX 980 wins both.

Q: How does the R9 M375X’s Vulkan score compare to its OpenCL score?

A: The R9 M375X scores 8,377 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is slightly higher than its 8,273 in Geekbench OpenCL, a difference of about 1.3%.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but everything else about their silicon diverges. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X uses the Tropo chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Gem System (R9 M300) generation. It packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, from the GeForce 900 generation. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, with a density of 13.1M per mm². The GTX 980’s die is over three times larger, and its transistor count is more than three times higher, explaining its massive compute advantage.

Core configurations reinforce the chasm. The R9 M375X has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTX 980 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs — triple the shading units, more than triple the TMUs, and quadruple the ROPs. Pixel rate for the GTX 980 is 77.82 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s for the R9 M375X. Texture rate is 155.6 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 4.981 TFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS. The GTX 980 is dominant in every throughput metric, a direct consequence of its larger chip and higher clock speeds.

Memory subsystems also differ sharply. The R9 M375X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 980 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 224.4 GB/s bandwidth — over three times the memory bandwidth. Clock speeds favor NVIDIA as well: the GTX 980 runs at 1127 MHz base and 1216 MHz boost, while the R9 M375X runs at 925 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. Effective memory speed is 7 Gbps on the GTX 980 versus 4.5 Gbps on the R9 M375X. API support is similar but not identical: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the R9 M375X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 980 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 is the superior performer in every head-to-head metric. Its OpenCL score of 34,676 is 76.1% higher than the R9 M375X’s 8,273, and its Vulkan score of 22,543 is 62.8% higher than the AMD’s 8,377. The GTX 980 also has a vastly larger memory pool (4 GB vs 2 GB), higher bandwidth (224.4 GB/s vs 72.00 GB/s), and more than triple the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. Anyone needing raw compute or high-resolution gaming should choose the GTX 980 without hesitation, provided they can accommodate its 165 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and 2x 6-pin power connectors.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375X, however, is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 8,325 actually exceeds the GTX 980’s 8,167, and it sits comfortably among mid-tier mobile rivals like the Quadro K1200 and GTX 675MX. It consumes far less power (no TDP listed, but the absence of power connectors suggests a modest draw), and its smaller die (123 mm² vs 398 mm²) makes it suitable for compact, low-power systems. For users who need basic 3D acceleration, video playback, or light compute in a laptop or small form factor, the R9 M375X is a capable choice. The verdict is not about which is better overall — it is about which fits the machine and the workload.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field. Process node is identical (28 nm, TSMC), but everything else diverges. The R9 M375X has a 123 mm² die with 1,500 million transistors; the GTX 980 has a 398 mm² die with 5,200 million transistors. Transistor density is slightly higher on NVIDIA (13.1M vs 12.2M per mm²). Clock speeds favor NVIDIA: base 1127 MHz vs 925 MHz, boost 1216 MHz vs 1015 MHz. Memory is 2 GB vs 4 GB GDDR5, with bus widths of 128-bit vs 256-bit, and bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s vs 224.4 GB/s. Shading units are 640 vs 2048, TMUs are 40 vs 128, and ROPs are 16 vs 64. Pixel rate is 16.24 vs 77.82 GPixel/s, texture rate is 40.60 vs 155.6 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 1,299.2 GFLOPS vs 4.981 TFLOPS.

Physical and power characteristics also differ. The GTX 980 has a TDP of 165 W, a dual-slot cooler, 2x 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 450 W; the R9 M375X lists none of these, indicating a much lower power envelope. The GTX 980 has dimensions of 267 mm length, 111 mm height, and 40 mm width, while the R9 M375X lists no dimensions, typical of a mobile or embedded part. Display outputs differ: the GTX 980 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2; the R9 M375X lists none. API support is close but not equal: DirectX 12 (11_1) vs 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.2.170 vs 1.4, with OpenGL 4.6 on both. Release dates are 2015-05-04 for the R9 M375X and 2014-09-18 for the GTX 980.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 wins every head-to-head benchmark in this data set, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy and graphically intensive tasks. Its OpenCL score of 34,676 and Vulkan score of 22,543 are multiples of the R9 M375X’s results. With 4 GB of memory and 224.4 GB/s bandwidth, it can handle large textures and high-resolution rendering. Its 165 W TDP and full-size dimensions indicate a desktop-oriented card meant for gaming rigs, 3D modeling workstations, or any system where performance trumps power efficiency. The GTX 980 also carries a launch MSRP of 549 USD, reflecting its premium positioning at release.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375X wins in scenarios where the GTX 980 cannot physically fit or operate. Its lack of power connectors and absence of a TDP figure suggest it is designed for mobile or low-profile systems, where the GTX 980’s dual-slot cooler and 450 W PSU requirement would be prohibitive. The R9 M375X’s average benchmark score of 8,325 is higher than the GTX 980’s 8,167, indicating that in a mixed workload of lightweight tests, it can outperform the NVIDIA card on average. Its nearest rival is the Quadro K1200, another low-power part, confirming its niche. For users with a laptop or a small form factor PC that cannot accommodate a large discrete GPU, the R9 M375X is the practical option. For anyone with a standard desktop chassis and a power supply capable of 450 W, the GTX 980 is the only rational choice. The data does not support a middle ground.