AMD Radeon R9 M375X vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M375X and the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 come from opposite ends of the GPU landscape, and the recorded data makes the comparison straightforward: the R9 M375X wins the only head-to-head benchmark by a decisive 13.5% margin in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 5000 counters with a far wider memory subsystem. Both parts are end-of-life hardware, so this analysis is about understanding what each design prioritized rather than choosing between retail purchases. The R9 M375X is a mobile-oriented GCN part built on a much denser process; the Quadro 5000 is a professional Fermi card built for workstation duties with a 320-bit bus and a 2,499 USD launch MSRP.

The Verdict

On raw compute performance, the data favors the AMD Radeon R9 M375X without ambiguity. It scores 8273 in Geekbench OpenCL against the Quadro 5000's 7289, a 13.5% advantage, and its average benchmark score of 8325 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs in the database versus the Quadro's 7289 average and 40th percentile. The R9 M375X also posts a Vulkan score of 8377, a test the Quadro 5000 has no recorded result for, which reflects its broader modern API support.

The Quadro 5000 argues for itself on memory bandwidth and professional feature positioning. Its 120.0 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth on a 320-bit bus outpaces the R9 M375X's 72.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus by a wide margin, and its 2.5 GB frame buffer edges the AMD card's 2 GB. For workloads that stream large datasets, that bandwidth matters more than shading throughput. Its 152 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and single 6-pin power connector also describe a desktop workstation card, whereas the R9 M375X's compact 123 mm² die on a 28 nm node describes a mobile-first design.

The verdict-driven summary: the data shows the R9 M375X as the faster compute part, and the Quadro 5000 as the higher-bandwidth professional platform.

Where Each One Wins

The R9 M375X wins every measured performance category that appears in the database. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 13.5%. Its theoretical rates are also superior across the board: 16.24 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s for pixel fillrate, 40.60 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s for texture fillrate, and 1299.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 722.3 GFLOPS. That FP32 figure is nearly double the Quadro's, which explains the comfortable OpenCL margin. The AMD card also leads in API modernity, supporting Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 feature level 11_1, compared to the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support listed.

The Quadro 5000 wins where bandwidth and output flexibility dominate. Its 120.0 GB/s memory bandwidth dwarfs the AMD card's 72.00 GB/s, and its 40 render output units more than double the R9 M375X's 16, which can benefit geometry-heavy professional viewports even if the measured pixel rate still trails due to lower clocks. Its 2.5 GB of memory gives it slightly more headroom for large professional datasets. The display configuration, one DVI plus two DisplayPort outputs, targets multi-monitor workstation setups, while the database lists no display outputs for the R9 M375X.

Architecture Differences

These two chips represent two distinct eras and philosophies. The Quadro 5000 uses NVIDIA's Fermi architecture on the GF100 chip, fabricated at TSMC on a 40 nm process. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a very large 529 mm² die, yielding a density of 5.9M transistors per mm². The R9 M375X uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on the Tropo chip, fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process, fitting 1,500 million transistors into just 123 mm² for a density of 12.2M per mm². That density advantage, more than double the Quadro's, is the defining architectural story here: the AMD part delivers more compute from roughly half the transistors on less than a quarter of the die area.

The core-count split illustrates different design balances. The R9 M375X carries 640 shading units, 40 texture units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 5000 carries 352 shading units, 44 texture units, and 40 ROPs. AMD's approach favors raw shader throughput, reflected in its 1299.2 GFLOPS FP32 rating at a 925 MHz base clock boosting to 1015 MHz. NVIDIA's approach favors render back-end capacity, with its 40 ROPs feeding off that 320-bit memory bus, though no base or boost clock is recorded for the chip.

Memory implementations differ sharply. Both use GDDR5, but the Quadro runs a 750 MHz memory clock (3 Gbps effective) across 320 bits for 120.0 GB/s, while the R9 M375X runs 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) across 128 bits for 72.00 GB/s. The bus interface generation also differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 on the Quadro versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the AMD card. Platform context diverges as well, with the Quadro being a dual-slot desktop card measuring 248 mm long and 111 mm tall, drawing 152 W with a 6-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the database records no TDP or physical dimensions for the mobile-oriented AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375X. It wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, 8273 to 7289, a 13.5% margin, and it holds the higher percentile ranking in the database, 43 versus 40.

Q: Does the Quadro 5000 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, in memory bandwidth. It delivers 120.0 GB/s on a 320-bit bus against the R9 M375X's 72.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus, and it also has 2.5 GB of memory versus 2 GB.

Q: How do their rivals compare?

A: The R9 M375X sits within a tight cluster: 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (8265), 1.2% behind the GeForce GTX 675MX (8427), 1.3% behind the Radeon 880M (8436), and 1.6% behind the GeForce MX330 (8458). The Quadro 5000 similarly clusters near the GeForce GTX 750 (7222, 0.9% behind it), the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203), the GTX 560 SE (7171), and the Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170).

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The R9 M375X. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 feature level 11_1, while the Quadro 5000 lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan support.

Q: How do their manufacturing processes differ?

A: The R9 M375X is built on a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The Quadro 5000 uses a 40 nm TSMC process with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die.

Q: Are both products still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The R9 M375X launched in May 2015 and was succeeded by Polaris Mobile; the Quadro 5000 launched in February 2011 and was succeeded by Quadro Kepler.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison point, and it is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R9 M375X scores 8273 while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7289, a 13.5% win for the AMD card. That margin aligns almost perfectly with the theoretical compute gap: the R9 M375X's 1299.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput exceeds the Quadro's 722.3 GFLOPS by a similar proportion, so the benchmark result is consistent with the silicon's raw capability rather than a driver anomaly.

Context from the rivals list reinforces the gap. The Quadro 5000's cluster of competitors, from the GTX 750 down to the Iris Pro P580, all average between 7170 and 7222, well below the R9 M375X's 8325 average. Even the AMD card's nearest challenger from above, the GeForce MX330 at 8458, sits only 1.6% ahead of it, meaning the R9 M375X competes a full performance tier higher than the Quadro 5000 in the database rankings.

The AMD card's Vulkan result of 8377 further underscores its standing, tracking slightly above its own OpenCL score and confirming that its compute performance is consistent across both measured compute APIs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification, and the differences tell a coherent story:

• Architecture: GCN 1.0 (Tropo chip) versus Fermi (GF100 chip)
• Process node: 28 nm versus 40 nm, both fabbed at TSMC
• Transistors and die: 1,500 million on 123 mm² (12.2M/mm²) versus 3,100 million on 529 mm² (5.9M/mm²)
• Shading units: 640 versus 352
• Texture units: 40 versus 44
• ROPs: 16 versus 40
• FP32 compute: 1299.2 GFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS
• Pixel rate: 16.24 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 40.60 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s
• Memory: 2 GB versus 2.5 GB of GDDR5
• Bus width: 128 bit versus 320 bit
• Bandwidth: 72.00 GB/s versus 120.0 GB/s
• Memory clock: 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) versus 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective)
• Core clocks: 925 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost recorded for the AMD card; none recorded for the Quadro
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16
• API support: Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1) versus DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan listed
• Power and form factor: the Quadro records a 152 W TDP, dual-slot width, one 6-pin connector, a 450 W suggested PSU, and dimensions of 248 mm by 111 mm; no corresponding fields are recorded for the R9 M375X
• Display outputs: none listed for the AMD card versus one DVI and two DisplayPort on the Quadro
• Release timing: 2015 for the R9 M375X versus 2011 for the Quadro 5000
• Launch MSRP: 2,499 USD recorded for the Quadro 5000; none recorded for the R9 M375X