AMD Radeon R9 M375X vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 points, while the Radeon R9 M375X scores 8,273 points. That is a 42.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial gap for a compute-oriented workload like OpenCL. The database records one win for the Quadro K5100M and zero for the AMD card in their head-to-head matchup.

Context from the broader benchmark database reinforces the spread. The Quadro K5100M carries an average benchmark score of 10,043, placing it at the 48th percentile among all GPUs. The Radeon R9 M375X averages 8,325, which sits at the 43rd percentile. The difference in average scores is roughly 1,718 points, or about 20.6% based on the lower figure. The percentile gap, while modest at five points, still places the NVIDIA part in a higher overall standing within the database.

The nearest rival data for each card further illustrates where they land. The Quadro K5100M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R9 M375, which averages 10,070 points, a delta of only -0.3% relative to the Quadro. That means the K5100M and the R9 M375 are essentially tied in overall average score, with the NVIDIA card trailing by a negligible margin. The next nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M at 10,013 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959, are also within one point of the K5100M's average. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 trails by 2%, averaging 9,846.

The Radeon R9 M375X has a different competitive neighborhood. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K1200, which averages 8,265 points, a delta of 0.7% in favor of the AMD card. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX averages 8,427, which is 1.2% ahead of the M375X. The AMD Radeon 880M averages 8,436, 1.3% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 averages 8,458, 1.6% ahead. So while the K5100M trades blows with rivals within a two-point spread, the M375X finds itself slightly behind most of its nearest competitors.

The head-to-head OpenCL result is the only direct measurement shared between these two specific cards. The 42.3% delta is far larger than any of the gaps seen in their respective nearest rival lists, which never exceed 2%. This suggests that the Quadro K5100M is not merely a bit faster than the Radeon R9 M375X in the tested workload, but categorically more capable in raw compute throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a lopsided matchup. The Quadro K5100M wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a wide margin. It also holds advantages in several architectural metrics that likely explain that result. The NVIDIA card has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The AMD card has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro's pixel rate is 24.67 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and its texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s. Floating point performance is similarly lopsided: 2.369 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS for the AMD card.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also favor the Quadro. The K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M375X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s. The Quadro also has a higher memory clock at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) compared to the AMD's 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), though the AMD part's faster per-pin speed is outweighed by its narrower bus.

The Radeon R9 M375X does have a few areas where it records a numeric advantage on paper. Its base clock is 925 MHz and boost clock is 1,015 MHz, both higher than the Quadro's flat 771 MHz. The AMD card is also smaller in terms of die size and transistor count, which is not a performance win but a manufacturing efficiency indicator. The Radeon's transistor density is 12.2M per mm², barely edging out the Quadro's 12.0M per mm². However, the AMD card has no direct benchmark win in the recorded data to translate those clock speed advantages into a measurable performance victory.

For compute workloads, the Quadro K5100M is the clear choice based on the OpenCL result and the underlying FP32 throughput. For any task that relies on pixel fill rate or texture throughput, the NVIDIA card again leads. The Radeon's higher clocks do not appear to compensate for its fewer execution resources in the tested scenario.

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 points compared to 8,273 for the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, a 42.3% difference in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K5100M averages 10,043 points across all GPU benchmarks in the database, while the Radeon R9 M375X averages 8,325 points. The NVIDIA card also sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, versus the 43rd percentile for the AMD card.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: The Quadro K5100M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375 with an average score of 10,070, a delta of -0.3%. The Radeon R9 M375X's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 with an average score of 8,265, a delta of 0.7% in favor of the AMD card.

Q: Does the Radeon R9 M375X have any clock speed advantage?

A: Yes, the AMD card has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1,015 MHz, both higher than the Quadro K5100M's base and boost of 771 MHz. However, this does not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded head-to-head test.

Q: How do memory specifications differ between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R9 M375X has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The Quadro K5100M has a transistor density of 12.0M per mm², while the Radeon R9 M375X has a slightly higher density of 12.2M per mm².

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The Quadro K5100M uses 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Radeon R9 M375X uses 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, versus 2 GB on a 128-bit bus for the AMD part. Memory bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s for the Quadro and 72.00 GB/s for the Radeon.

Clock speeds favor the AMD card. The Radeon runs at 925 MHz base and 1,015 MHz boost, while the Quadro runs at 771 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro uses 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the Radeon uses 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Pixel rate is 24.67 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card versus 16.24 GPixel/s for the AMD card. Texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.369 TFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS.

The power and physical specifications also diverge. The Quadro K5100M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors. The Radeon R9 M375X has no recorded TDP, slot width, or power connector data, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for the NVIDIA card, while no display output data is recorded for the AMD card.

DirectX support differs slightly: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan versions are close, with the NVIDIA card at 1.2.175 and the AMD card at 1.2.170. The Quadro was released in July 2013, while the Radeon was released in May 2015. The AMD card is noted as the successor to Solar System and the predecessor to Polaris Mobile, while the Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Quadro K5100M is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Radeon R9 M375X is built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Tropo chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2M per mm².

The transistor and die size differences are stark. The Quadro uses more than twice the transistor count of the Radeon, on a die more than twice as large. This aligns with the Quadro's much higher shading unit, TMU, and ROP counts. The Radeon compensates with a higher clock speed on both base and boost, but the execution resource deficit is too large to overcome in the recorded benchmark.

Both chips are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm node, which means the density advantage of the AMD part is marginal. The architectural split is more meaningful: Kepler versus GCN 1.0 represent fundamentally different design philosophies. Kepler relies on a large array of CUDA cores with a wide memory bus, while GCN 1.0 uses a more modest array of stream processors with a narrower memory interface. The API support reflects this: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a slightly newer feature level. Vulkan support is similar, with the NVIDIA driver at 1.2.175 and the AMD driver at 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M outperforms the AMD Radeon R9 M375X in the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, by 42.3%. The K5100M also holds a higher average benchmark score, 10,043 versus 8,325, and a higher percentile ranking, 48th versus 43rd. Its memory subsystem is substantially larger, 8 GB versus 2 GB, with a wider 256-bit bus and higher bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s. Its compute resources are more than double those of the AMD card in terms of shading units, TMUs, and ROPs.

The Radeon R9 M375X does have higher clock speeds, with a 925 MHz base and 1,015 MHz boost against the Quadro's flat 771 MHz. It also has a slightly smaller die and lower transistor count, which may indicate lower manufacturing cost, but the database does not include pricing data and the performance record does not favor it. The AMD card's nearest rivals are all within 1.6% of its average score, meaning it sits in a tightly packed performance tier. The Quadro K5100M, by contrast, is effectively tied with its nearest rival and sits in a higher tier.

For users prioritizing compute performance, memory capacity, or memory bandwidth, the Quadro K5100M is the correct selection based on the recorded data. For users who need a smaller, lower-power footprint, the Radeon R9 M375X may be worth considering, but the database does not record a TDP for the AMD card, so that comparison cannot be quantified here. The verdict from the measurements is straightforward: the Quadro K5100M wins the head-to-head and the broader benchmark averages. The Radeon R9 M375X is a viable entry in its own tier, but it is not competitive with the Quadro in the tests recorded.