AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and NVIDIA Quadro M5000 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by roughly two years of development. The AMD card, built on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, ships with the Vega 10 chip and GCN 5.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA card uses the older 28 nm TSMC node with the GM204 chip and Maxwell 2.0. The database places the Vega 56 at the 81st percentile among all GPUs, whereas the Quadro M5000 sits at the 76th percentile. Their average benchmark scores differ significantly: 37,507 for the AMD part versus 31,206 for the NVIDIA part, a gap of about 20 percent. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, so this analysis relies on the individual recorded scores, the specification data, and the nearest-rival comparisons to draw conclusions.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 is the stronger performer in raw compute and graphics throughput. Its average benchmark score of 37,507 exceeds the Quadro M5000’s 31,206 by 6,301 points, a margin of roughly 20 percent. The AMD card’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla P4, scores 37,628, which is only 0.3 percent higher, indicating the Vega 56 sits just below a professional datacenter card in overall performance. The Quadro M5000’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q, scores 31,220, essentially identical at a delta of 0 percent, so the M5000 is right at the middle of its performance tier.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, the RX Vega 56 is the clear choice. Its FP32 rate of 10.54 TFLOPS is more than double the Quadro M5000’s 4.252 TFLOPS. The texture rate tells a similar story: 329.5 GTexel/s versus 132.9 GTexel/s. Even the pixel rate favors the AMD card, at 94.14 GPixel/s compared to 66.43 GPixel/s. In the recorded benchmarks, the Vega 56 achieves 73,512 in Geekbench Metal, while the M5000 records 29,481 in Geekbench OpenCL and 32,931 in Geekbench Vulkan. Direct comparison across these tests is not possible due to differing APIs, but the magnitude of the AMD score suggests a substantial advantage in compute workloads.

However, the Quadro M5000 has its own niche. Its power draw is lower at 150 W versus 210 W for the AMD card, and it requires only a single 6-pin power connector compared to two 8-pin connectors. The suggested power supply is 450 W for the NVIDIA part versus 550 W for the AMD part. For systems with limited power delivery or older power supplies, the M5000 is the safer fit. Its display outputs include 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, which may suit legacy workstation setups, whereas the Vega 56 offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, favoring modern monitors.

The verdict from the data: choose the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 for raw performance, higher memory bandwidth, and newer feature support. Choose the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 for lower power consumption, a simpler power connector requirement, and a smaller physical footprint in terms of length (267 mm versus 280 mm). The M5000 also has a slightly higher Vulkan version support at 1.4 versus 1.3, though both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 scores 37,507 in the database average, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 scores 31,206. That puts the Vega 56 ahead by 20 percent.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus, delivering 409.6 GB/s. The Quadro M5000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, delivering 211.6 GB/s. The AMD card has nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Vega 56 packs 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, yielding 25.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro M5000 has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, for 13.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is denser due to the smaller 14 nm process.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 are listed as end-of-life in the database. The Vega 56 released on August 13, 2017, and the M5000 released on June 28, 2015.

Q: Which card has a higher FP16 compute capability?

A: The Vega 56 supports FP16 at 21.09 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro M5000 has no recorded FP16 output. This makes the AMD card suitable for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan support differs: the Vega 56 supports Vulkan 1.3, and the Quadro M5000 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 is built on GCN 5.0, a fifth-generation Graphics Core Next design, using the Vega 10 chip. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. The transistor density reaches 25.3 million per square millimeter, reflecting the modern manufacturing node. The memory subsystem uses HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus, which explains the high bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. The card has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It supports FP16 at 21.09 TFLOPS, which is double its FP32 rate of 10.54 TFLOPS, indicating a 2:1 ratio for half-precision work.

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 uses Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The memory is GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 211.6 GB/s. The shading unit count is 2,048, with 128 TMUs and 64 ROPs. There is no FP16 capability listed, so the card is limited to FP32 compute at 4.252 TFLOPS.

The architectural gap is clear: the Vega 56 is a newer, denser design with a wider memory bus and more compute units. The Quadro M5000 is an older Maxwell part that prioritizes efficiency over raw throughput. Both cards lack ray tracing cores and tensor cores, so neither offers dedicated hardware for those workloads. The Vega 56’s FP16 support is a notable feature for machine learning inference or mixed-precision compute, whereas the M5000 has no such path.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 14 nm for AMD versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. The transistor count is 12,500 million versus 5,200 million. The die size is 495 mm² versus 398 mm², and the transistor density is 25.3 million per square millimeter versus 13.1 million.

Clock speeds: the Vega 56 has a base clock of 1156 MHz and a boost clock of 1471 MHz, while the M5000 runs at 861 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. The memory clock is 800 MHz with 1600 Mbps effective for the AMD card, versus 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective for the NVIDIA card.

Memory bandwidth is 409.6 GB/s for the Vega 56 and 211.6 GB/s for the M5000, despite both having 8 GB of memory. The bus width is 2048 bit for AMD and 256 bit for NVIDIA. The memory type is HBM2 for the Vega 56 and GDDR5 for the M5000.

Compute units: 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for the AMD card; 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for the NVIDIA card. The pixel rate is 94.14 GPixel/s versus 66.43 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 329.5 GTexel/s versus 132.9 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 10.54 TFLOPS versus 4.252 TFLOPS. FP16 is 21.09 TFLOPS for AMD, with no recorded value for NVIDIA.

Power: the Vega 56 has a TDP of 210 W and requires two 8-pin connectors, with a suggested 550 W power supply. The M5000 has a TDP of 150 W, one 6-pin connector, and a suggested 450 W power supply. Both are dual-slot cards, but the Vega 56 measures 280 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width; the M5000 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with no recorded width.

Display outputs: the Vega 56 offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a; the M5000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The Vega 56’s release date is August 13, 2017, while the M5000’s is June 28, 2015. The AMD card’s predecessor is Polaris and successor is Navi; the NVIDIA card’s predecessor is Quadro Kepler and successor is Quadro Pascal. The Vega 56 has a launch MSRP of 399 USD, and the M5000 has no recorded MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two cards, so the comparison must draw from individual test scores and the average benchmark metric. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 records a Geekbench Metal score of 73,512 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,501. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 29,481 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 32,931.

The average benchmark score is the most direct point of comparison. The Vega 56’s 37,507 is 20 percent higher than the M5000’s 31,206. In the nearest-rival context, the Vega 56 trails the Tesla P4 by 0.3 percent (37,628 versus 37,507) and the GeForce RTX 4070 by 0.4 percent (37,648 versus 37,507). It leads the Radeon PRO W6400 by 0.9 percent (37,157 versus 37,507) and trails the RTX 4080 Mobile by 1.6 percent (38,135 versus 37,507). The M5000, by contrast, is within 0.4 percent of the GRID M60-1Q (31,220 versus 31,206), 0.4 percent ahead of the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER (31,087 versus 31,206), 1 percent behind the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (31,532 versus 31,206), and 1.5 percent behind the TITAN RTX (31,676 versus 31,206).

The FP32 compute figures reinforce the gap: 10.54 TFLOPS for the Vega 56 versus 4.252 TFLOPS for the M5000, a 148 percent advantage. The texture rate of 329.5 GTexel/s versus 132.9 GTexel/s is a 148 percent increase as well. The pixel rate difference is smaller, at 94.14 GPixel/s versus 66.43 GPixel/s, a 42 percent lead for AMD. The memory bandwidth advantage is 409.6 GB/s versus 211.6 GB/s, a 94 percent difference.

The Geekbench Metal score of 73,512 on the Vega 56 is particularly high, but since the M5000 has no Metal benchmark recorded, it cannot be compared directly. The M5000’s Vulkan score of 32,931, however, can be viewed against the Vega 56’s Vulkan 1.3 support, though no Vulkan score exists for the AMD card in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 wins in raw compute performance. The data shows a 20 percent higher average benchmark score, more than double the FP32 throughput, nearly double the memory bandwidth, and a higher pixel rate. It is the better choice for compute-heavy applications such as rendering, simulation, or any workload that can leverage FP16. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,501 indicates solid DirectX 12 performance. The Vega 56 also has a higher percentile ranking at 81st versus 76th, meaning it outperforms a larger fraction of the GPU population.

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 wins in power efficiency and system integration. Its TDP of 150 W is 60 W lower than the Vega 56’s 210 W. It requires only one 6-pin connector versus two 8-pin connectors, and its suggested power supply is 450 W versus 550 W. For a workstation with a modest power budget, the M5000 is less demanding. Its physical length of 267 mm is shorter than the Vega 56’s 280 mm, which may fit smaller chassis. The M5000 also supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer version than the Vega 56’s Vulkan 1.3, which could matter for specific applications that require the latest Vulkan features.

The M5000’s display output includes a DVI port, which is absent on the Vega 56, making it useful for legacy monitors. The NVIDIA card also has a higher Geekbench Vulkan score of 32,931, though no comparable Vulkan score exists for the AMD card in the database. The M5000’s nearest rivals are all NVIDIA parts, indicating it sits in a professional, validated ecosystem, while the Vega 56’s rivals mix consumer and professional cards.

In summary, the Vega 56 is the performance pick, with superior compute, memory, and benchmark scores. The M5000 is the efficiency pick, with lower power draw, simpler power requirements, and a shorter card length. Both are end-of-life products, so the choice depends on the specific workload and system constraints rather than future upgrade paths.