AMD Radeon R9 M375X vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database positions the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M clearly ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375X. Across the two recorded head-to-head tests, the Quadro M2000M wins both, with a 21.6% margin in Geekbench OpenCL and a 14.7% margin in Geekbench Vulkan. The average benchmark score reflects this split: the Quadro M2000M lands at 9832, while the R9 M375X sits at 8325. That is an 18.1% gap in favor of the NVIDIA part when comparing their overall averages, a substantial difference for two mobile GPUs from the same era.

The percentile rankings reinforce the hierarchy. The Quadro M2000M sits in the 47th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R9 M375X is in the 43rd percentile. Neither is a top-tier part, but the Quadro M2000M consistently outperforms its AMD counterpart in every measured workload. The data suggests that for anyone choosing between these two for a mobile workstation or gaming laptop, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is the stronger pick on raw compute and graphics performance. The R9 M375X, however, still holds its own as a capable entry-level GPU, particularly when considering its lower memory footprint and older architecture.

The closest rivals in the database provide additional context. The Quadro M2000M's nearest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, which scores 9846, a negligible 0.1% difference. The AMD FirePro W5000 trails by 0.3%, and the GeForce GTX 1070 is 0.5% behind, despite being a desktop gaming card. This suggests the Quadro M2000M punches well above its mobile workstation classification in synthetic benchmarks. The R9 M375X, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (0.7% ahead), the GeForce GTX 675MX (1.2% behind), and the AMD Radeon 880M (1.3% behind). The R9 M375X is competitive with these parts but does not threaten the Quadro M2000M's standing.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X uses the Tropo chip, based on GCN 1.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical. The transistor counts differ slightly: the Quadro M2000M packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The R9 M375X has 1,500 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die, resulting in a density of 12.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA part is thus denser and larger in absolute terms.

The compute configurations are symmetric in some respects. Both GPUs have 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. That means their raw execution resources are identical in count. The difference lies in clock speeds and architectural efficiency. The Quadro M2000M runs at a base clock of 1098 MHz with a boost of 1137 MHz, while the R9 M375X runs at 925 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. Those higher clocks translate directly into higher throughput for the NVIDIA part.

Memory configurations also diverge. The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M375X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but with only 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is higher on the NVIDIA side as well: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The extra memory capacity and bandwidth give the Quadro M2000M a clear advantage in workloads that are memory-bound.

Feature support differs on the API front. The Quadro M2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 M375X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, but the NVIDIA part supports a newer Vulkan version. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro M2000M uses MXM-A (3.0), a modular mobile form factor, while the R9 M375X uses PCIe 3.0 x16, a standard slot interface.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M2000M wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 10057 against 8273 for the R9 M375X, a 21.6% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 9606 against 8377, a 14.7% lead. That means the NVIDIA part is faster in both compute-heavy OpenCL workloads and modern graphics API workloads. The advantage is larger in OpenCL, suggesting that the Maxwell architecture's compute efficiency and higher clock speeds pay off more in general-purpose GPU tasks.

The R9 M375X does not win any head-to-head test. However, its individual benchmark scores are not negligible. Its OpenCL score of 8273 and Vulkan score of 8377 are within striking distance of several NVIDIA Quadro parts in the database. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200, has an average score of 8265, which is only 0.7% behind the R9 M375X. This places the AMD part in the same performance tier as entry-level workstation GPUs, even if it cannot match the Quadro M2000M.

For use cases, the data implies a clear split. The Quadro M2000M is better suited for tasks that demand high memory capacity, such as large datasets or multi-textured scenes, given its 4 GB frame buffer. The R9 M375X, with 2 GB, is more limited in that regard. The Quadro M2000M also has a higher pixel rate (18.19 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s) and texture rate (45.48 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s), which translates to faster rasterization and texture filtering. The R9 M375X might still be acceptable for lighter workloads, but the recorded data does not show any scenario where it outperforms the NVIDIA part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9832, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X has an average of 8325, a difference of approximately 18.1%.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between these two GPUs?

A: The largest recorded gap is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro M2000M scores 10057 versus 8273 for the R9 M375X, a 21.6% difference.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both have 640 shading units, along with 40 texture mapping units and 16 render output units.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M375X has 2 GB with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, though the transistor counts differ at 1,870 million for the Quadro M2000M and 1,500 million for the R9 M375X.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M375X supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M2000M delivers 10057 points, while the R9 M375X delivers 8273 points. That is a 21.6% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin that indicates a meaningful performance gap in compute workloads. The OpenCL test typically stresses raw arithmetic throughput and memory access patterns; the higher clocks and larger memory bandwidth of the Quadro M2000M explain the result.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows but remains significant. The Quadro M2000M scores 9606, and the R9 M375X scores 8377, giving the NVIDIA part a 14.7% lead. Vulkan is a lower-level API that often exposes architectural efficiencies more directly. The fact that the Quadro M2000M still leads by double digits suggests its Maxwell architecture is more efficient per clock than the GCN 1.0 design in the AMD part.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Quadro M2000M's average of 9832 places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803). It even edges out the GeForce GTX 1070 by 0.5%, a desktop GPU known for strong gaming performance. The R9 M375X's average of 8325 places it 0.7% ahead of the Quadro K1200 (8265) but 1.2% behind the GeForce GTX 675MX (8427). The R9 M375X is competitive with lower-tier parts, but it cannot bridge the gap to the Quadro M2000M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | AMD Radeon R9 M375X |

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

| Chip | GM107 | Tropo |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) | Gem System (R9 M300) |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1098 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1137 MHz | 1015 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 18.19 GPixel/s | 16.24 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.48 GTexel/s | 40.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,455.4 GFLOPS | 1,299.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2015-12-02 | 2015-05-04 |

The specification table shows a consistent pattern. The Quadro M2000M leads in every performance-relevant metric: clocks, memory size, bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. The only areas where the R9 M375X differs favorably are its slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0) and its standard PCIe slot interface, which may be easier to integrate into certain systems. The production status for both is end-of-life, and neither GPU has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.