AMD Radeon RX 590 GME vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 590 GME vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000: two end-of-life cards from different worlds, one aimed at high-volume rasterization, the other at professional visualization. Benchmark data shows the AMD card dominating the two shared tests, but the NVIDIA card counters with architectural strengths in raw pixel throughput and API feature support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are decisively lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME scores 36,294 against the Quadro M5000’s 29,481, a 23.1% advantage. That gap widens dramatically in Geekbench Vulkan: AMD posts 60,508 versus NVIDIA’s 32,931, an 83.7% lead. The RX 590 GME wins both head-to-head tests, with a 2–0 sweep.

These numbers align with each card’s compute specifications. The RX 590 GME delivers 6.543 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Quadro M5000 manages 4.252 TFLOPS. The AMD card’s texture rate of 204.5 GTexel/s versus 132.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA reinforces its fill-rate advantage. However, the Quadro M5000 counters in pixel throughput: 66.43 GPixel/s versus 45.44 GPixel/s for AMD, a 46% edge in pure ROP output.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The RX 590 GME averages 32,601 across all tests, placing it in the 77th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro M5000 averages 31,206, sitting in the 76th percentile. The delta between them is roughly 4.5%, which is modest compared to the head-to-head blowouts. The RX 590 GME’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 (0.2% ahead), AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (0.4% ahead), and AMD FirePro S10000 (0.7% ahead), while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile trails by 0.8%. The Quadro M5000 sits within 1.5% of the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q, GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell, and TITAN RTX.

Vulkan performance is where the RX 590 GME truly separates itself. Its 60,508 score is nearly double the Quadro’s, suggesting far better driver optimization for modern graphics APIs. OpenCL shows a smaller but still significant gap. The data suggests the AMD card is the stronger raw compute performer, while the NVIDIA card’s higher pixel rate hints at different workload strengths.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing generations and design philosophies. The RX 590 GME uses the Polaris 20 chip built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, packing 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The Quadro M5000 uses the GM204 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm node, with 5,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 398 mm² die, giving a density of just 13.1 million per square millimeter.

Architecturally, the RX 590 GME runs GCN 4.0 with 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro M5000 runs Maxwell 2.0 with 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA card’s doubling of ROPs explains its higher pixel rate despite lower clocks. Clock speeds differ significantly: the RX 590 GME boosts to 1,420 MHz from a 1,257 MHz base, while the Quadro M5000 boosts to just 1,038 MHz from an 861 MHz base. AMD’s 14 nm process allows much higher clocks than NVIDIA’s 28 nm node.

Memory subsystems are similar in capacity but differ in speed. Both cards use 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The RX 590 GME runs memory at 2,000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), yielding 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M5000 runs at 1,653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), producing 211.6 GB/s. That 21% bandwidth advantage for AMD supports its compute lead.

Feature support diverges notably. The RX 590 GME supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro M5000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA’s card has a higher DX12 feature level and newer Vulkan version, but the benchmark results suggest AMD’s driver stack extracts more real-world performance from its hardware. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Physical and power characteristics differ as well. The RX 590 GME draws 175 W with a single 8-pin connector, while the Quadro M5000 draws 150 W with a single 6-pin. Both are dual-slot cards requiring a 450 W PSU. The AMD card is shorter at 241 mm (9.5 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches) for NVIDIA. Display outputs reflect their target markets: AMD offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while NVIDIA offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME. It delivers 6.543 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.252 TFLOPS for the Quadro M5000, and it wins Geekbench OpenCL by 23.1% and Vulkan by 83.7%.

Q: Does the Quadro M5000 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, in pixel fill rate. The Quadro M5000 outputs 66.43 GPixel/s versus 45.44 GPixel/s for the RX 590 GME, driven by its 64 ROPs compared to AMD’s 32.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: Both use 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the RX 590 GME has higher bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s versus 211.6 GB/s for the Quadro M5000.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Quadro M5000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 590 GME supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. NVIDIA’s card has higher feature levels, though AMD wins in benchmark scores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RX 590 GME has a 175 W TDP with a 1x 8-pin connector, while the Quadro M5000 has a 150 W TDP with a 1x 6-pin. Both recommend a 450 W PSU and are dual-slot cards.

Q: How do their overall benchmark percentiles compare?

A: The RX 590 GME sits in the 77th percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 32,601, while the Quadro M5000 sits in the 76th percentile with an average score of 31,206.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon RX 590 GME | NVIDIA Quadro M5000 |

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

| Chip | Polaris 20 | GM204 |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1257 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1420 MHz | 1038 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 211.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 144 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 45.44 GPixel/s | 66.43 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 204.5 GTexel/s | 132.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.543 TFLOPS | 4.252 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.543 TFLOPS (1:1) | null |

| TDP | 175 W | 150 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | null | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2020-03-08 | 2015-06-28 |

| Predecessor | Arctic Islands | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Vega | Quadro Pascal |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general compute workloads: the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME. It leads by 23.1% in OpenCL and an enormous 83.7% in Vulkan, has 54% more FP32 throughput, and delivers 21% more memory bandwidth. Its 14 nm process enables higher clocks and better transistor density, and its shorter length makes it easier to fit in compact systems. For anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan applications, the RX 590 GME is the stronger choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 retains relevance in specific scenarios. Its 64 ROPs deliver 46% higher pixel fill rate, which matters for certain rasterization-heavy workloads. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, giving it a feature-level edge over AMD’s DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Its 150 W TDP is 25 W lower, and it uses a single 6-pin connector instead of an 8-pin. For professional environments requiring DVI output or specific ISV certifications, the Quadro M5000 offers capabilities the AMD card lacks.

Overall benchmark averages are close — 32,601 versus 31,206, a 4.5% gap — but the head-to-head tests are not. The RX 590 GME’s 83.7% Vulkan lead is the single most decisive metric in this comparison. Users prioritizing raw compute and modern API performance should choose AMD. Users needing higher pixel throughput, lower power draw, or professional display outputs may prefer the Quadro M5000, despite its older 28 nm process and lower benchmark scores.