AMD Radeon R9 M375X vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and AMD Radeon R9 M375X represent two fundamentally different design philosophies and eras of GPU architecture. The Quadro P4000 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, using the GP104 chip, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Radeon R9 M375X uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, produced on a much older 28 nm process, also at TSMC.

The transistor counts illustrate the scale gap between these two designs. The Quadro P4000 packs 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The Radeon R9 M375X, by comparison, contains only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2M per mm². This nearly fivefold difference in transistor count is the single most important architectural distinction, as it directly enables the Quadro's far larger execution resources.

The shading resources differ dramatically. The Quadro P4000 features 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Radeon R9 M375X offers 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and just 16 ROPs. These numbers translate into substantial throughput advantages for the NVIDIA part across every workload type, whether pixel-bound, texture-bound, or compute-bound.

Both GPUs support similar modern API levels, but with important caveats. The Quadro P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon R9 M375X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX feature level difference, 12_1 versus 11_1, means the AMD part lacks some of the more advanced DirectX 12 features that the NVIDIA card can access. The Vulkan version gap, 1.4 versus 1.2.170, also indicates newer driver and API support on the Pascal card.

The memory subsystems follow the same pattern of disparity. The Quadro P4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R9 M375X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 72.00 GB/s. This is a 3.4x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro, which matters enormously for texture-heavy scenes, large framebuffers, and compute workloads that stream data through memory.

Clock speeds add another layer of separation. The Quadro P4000 runs at a base clock of 1202 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz, with memory clocked at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective). The Radeon R9 M375X operates at 925 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost, with memory at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Even though the AMD part's clocks are not dramatically lower, the combination of fewer cores and less bandwidth makes the overall throughput gap very wide.

The Quadro P4000 also supports FP16 compute at 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the Radeon R9 M375X has no recorded FP16 rate. This is a notable feature difference for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, though the 1:64 ratio on the NVIDIA part is not a high-throughput implementation.

Physically, the Quadro P4000 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, with a 105 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector. The suggested PSU is 300 W. The Radeon R9 M375X has no recorded dimensions, TDP, slot width, or power connector data in the database, which suggests it was primarily designed for mobile or OEM integration rather than as a standalone retail card.

Both products are marked as end-of-life. The Quadro P4000 was released in early February 2017, while the Radeon R9 M375X was released in early May 2015, making the AMD part nearly two years older.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show differences in nearly every measurable category. The process node differs, 16 nm for the Quadro versus 28 nm for the Radeon. Transistor count differs, 7,200 million versus 1,500 million. Die size differs, 314 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density differs, 22.9M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

Clock speeds differ across the board: base clock 1202 MHz versus 925 MHz, boost clock 1480 MHz versus 1015 MHz, memory clock 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) versus 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration differs: 8 GB versus 2 GB, 256-bit versus 128-bit bus, 243.3 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources differ: 1,792 versus 640 shading units, 112 versus 40 TMUs, 64 versus 16 ROPs.

Throughput rates differ: pixel rate 94.72 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, texture rate 165.8 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s, FP32 5.304 TFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS.

DirectX support differs: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1). Vulkan support differs: 1.4 versus 1.2.170.

The Quadro P4000 has a launch MSRP of 815 USD. The Radeon R9 M375X has no recorded launch MSRP.

Physical specifications for the Radeon R9 M375X are largely absent from the database, including TDP, slot width, power connectors, and dimensions. The Quadro P4000 is fully documented in these areas.

The Quadro P4000 supports a 4x DisplayPort 1.4a output configuration. The Radeon R9 M375X has no recorded display output configuration.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 has 1,792 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X has 640 shading units. This is nearly a 3x difference in raw shader count.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The Quadro P4000 delivers 243.3 GB/s over a 256-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR5. The Radeon R9 M375X delivers 72.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the DirectX feature level difference?

A: The Quadro P4000 supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1. The Radeon R9 M375X supports DirectX 12 with feature level 11_1, which means it cannot access some of the more advanced DirectX 12 features.

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput of each card?

A: The Quadro P4000 achieves 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Radeon R9 M375X achieves 1,299.2 GFLOPS, which is roughly 4.1 times lower.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Quadro P4000 scores 41,786, while the Radeon R9 M375X scores 8,377. The Quadro is 398.8% ahead in this workload.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Quadro P4000 was released in early February 2017, and the Radeon R9 M375X was released in early May 2015.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins both by a very wide margin.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 against the Radeon R9 M375X's 8,273. This gives the Quadro a 337.7% advantage. The OpenCL result reflects overall compute throughput across a range of workloads, and the 4.1x gap in FP32 throughput, 5.304 TFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS, aligns closely with this benchmark delta. The bandwidth difference in memory bandwidth, 243.3 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s, also contributes to the OpenCL score gap, as OpenCL kernels often test memory access patterns alongside compute.

In the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark, the separation is even larger. The Quadro P4000 scores 41,786, while the Radeon R9 M375X scores 8,377, a 398.8% delta. Vulkan performance on these two cards is closer to their theoretical texture rate ratio: the Quadro's texture rate of 165.8 GTexel/s versus 40.40 GTexel/s is a 4.1x difference, and the pixel rate of 94.72 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s is a 5.8x difference. The fact that the Vulkan score gap exceeds the FP32 ratio suggests that the Quadro's advantage scales with its ROP and memory bandwidth advantages as well.

The overall benchmark averages in the database reflect this dominance. The Quadro P4000 has an average benchmark score of 9,665 across all recorded tests, including Passmark tests, 3DMark Steel Nomad, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan. The Radeon R9 M375X has an average benchmark score of 8,325, but this average is computed from only two Geekbench results. The Quadro P4000's percentile places it at 47% of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon R9 M375X sits at 43%. This percentile difference, despite the massive head-to-head wins, reflects the fact that the Radeon's average is pulled from a very small benchmark sample and that the broader GPU landscape includes many faster parts.

The Quadro P4000's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (average score 9,653, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645, delta 0.2%), the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637, delta 0.3%), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716, delta -0.5%). This grouping shows the Quadro P4000 sits in a tightly clustered performance tier, with all four rivals within 0.5% of its average score.

The Radeon R9 M375X's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (8,265, delta 0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427, delta -1.2%), the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436, delta -1.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, delta -1.6%). The Radeon sits slightly below all but the Quadro K1200 in this group.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear and unambiguous picture. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 outperforms the AMD Radeon R9 M375X in every recorded benchmark, with deltas of 337.7% in OpenCL and 398.8% in Vulkan. The architecture differences explain why: the Quadro has 1,792 shading units versus 640, 8 GB of memory versus 2 GB, 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth versus 72.00 GB/s, and a 16 nm process versus 28 nm. The Quadro's FP32 throughput of 5.304 TFLOPS is roughly four times the Radeon's 1,299.2 GFLOPS.

The Quadro P4000 also carries a launch MSRP of 815 USD, while the Radeon R9 M375X has no recorded price. The Radeon's lack of recorded physical specifications, display outputs, and power requirements suggests it was aimed at a different market segment, likely mobile or OEM systems. The Quadro is a fully specified desktop workstation card with a 105 W TDP, single-slot form factor, and four DisplayPort outputs.

For any workload in the recorded data, the Quadro P4000 is the only rational choice. The Radeon R9 M375X is not competitive on any benchmark that the database covers. The Quadro's 47th percentile placement versus the Radeon's 43rd percentile placement does not fully convey the head-to-head gap, because the percentile metric is computed against all GPUs in the database, including many far faster modern parts.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins in every category recorded. In OpenCL compute, it is 337.7% ahead. In Vulkan, it is 398.8% ahead. Its higher pixel rate, 94.72 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, makes it the choice for rasterization-heavy workloads. Its higher texture rate, 165.8 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s, benefits texture-bound scenes. Its memory bandwidth, 243.3 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s, helps any workload that streams large datasets.

The Quadro P4000 is also the only card with FP16 support, though at a 1:64 ratio, and the only one with a documented display output configuration: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Its 8 GB memory capacity versus 2 GB allows for larger textures, bigger framebuffers, and more data resident on the GPU.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375X wins no recorded benchmarks. Its advantages are limited to aspects not measured in the head-to-head tests. It has a 28 nm process, which is older and less efficient than the Quadro's 16 nm process, but it also has a much smaller die at 123 mm² and lower transistor count at 1,500 million, which could imply lower manufacturing cost in volume, though no pricing data is recorded. Its lack of recorded TDP and power connector data makes power comparisons impossible from the database.

The only scenario where the Radeon R9 M375X might be considered is one where the workload is entirely outside the recorded benchmarks, and even then, the architectural disadvantages in shading units, ROPs, TMUs, memory capacity, and bandwidth would likely persist. The database records no strength for the AMD part in any tested workload. Users seeking a workstation GPU, which the Quadro P4000's name and feature set indicate, would choose the NVIDIA card. Users with a system that requires the Radeon's specific form factor or integration would be limited to that part, but the performance data offers no evidence of any workload where the Radeon is preferable on merit.