AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 and AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH represent two divergent approaches to professional graphics, separated by process node, memory technology, and intended deployment. The benchmark data, drawn from Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, shows the Quadro M5000 winning both head-to-head comparisons, yet the RX Vega M GH counters with distinct architectural efficiencies. The Quadro M5000 achieves an average benchmark score of 31,206 against the RX Vega M GH’s 29,197, a gap of roughly 6.9%. However, the AMD part’s integrated form factor and higher pixel rate reveal a different set of priorities, making the choice between them a question of workload and platform constraints rather than outright superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 dominates in raw compute throughput across both tested APIs. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 29,481 against the RX Vega M GH’s 27,125, an 8.7% advantage. The Vulkan test narrows the gap but still favors NVIDIA: 32,931 versus 31,268, a 5.3% lead. These results place the Quadro M5000 at the 76th percentile among all GPUs, while the RX Vega M GH sits at the 74th percentile. The data indicates the Quadro M5000 is the stronger choice for applications leveraging OpenCL or Vulkan compute, particularly where sustained FP32 throughput matters. Its 4.252 TFLOPS FP32 rating exceeds the RX Vega M GH’s 3.656 TFLOPS, a 16.3% difference that likely explains the OpenCL gap.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, despite losing both benchmarks, wins in specific architectural metrics. Its pixel rate of 76.16 GPixel/s surpasses the Quadro M5000’s 66.43 GPixel/s, a 14.6% advantage. This suggests the RX Vega M GH could outperform in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as certain rasterization tasks or lower-resolution rendering where pixel throughput is the bottleneck. Additionally, its texture rate of 114.2 GTexel/s trails the Quadro’s 132.9 GTexel/s, but the AMD part’s smaller die and integrated design make it a compelling option for compact systems where the Quadro’s 267 mm length and dual-slot footprint are impractical. The RX Vega M GH draws 100 W versus the Quadro’s 150 W, and it requires no power connectors, fitting into an IGP slot—a decisive factor for space-constrained or power-sensitive deployments.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Quadro M5000 uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, packing 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². In contrast, the RX Vega M GH employs AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, with 5,000 million transistors in a 208 mm² die—a density of 24.0 million per mm². The smaller process node gives AMD a 60.5% higher transistor density, enabling more logic per area, though the Quadro’s larger die provides more absolute resources.

Memory architectures diverge sharply. The Quadro M5000 pairs 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 211.6 GB/s bandwidth. The RX Vega M GH uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, achieving 204.8 GB/s—only 3.2% less bandwidth despite half the capacity. The HBM2 implementation likely reduces memory latency and power, but the Quadro’s larger frame buffer suits high-resolution or multi-display workloads. Shader resources also differ: the Quadro M5000 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the RX Vega M GH has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Quadro’s 33.3% more shading units and TMUs contribute to its higher texture rate, while the equal ROP count explains the AMD part’s pixel-rate win.

Clock speeds tell a mixed story. The RX Vega M GH runs at a base of 1,063 MHz and boost of 1,190 MHz, notably higher than the Quadro’s 861 MHz base and 1,038 MHz boost. Yet the Quadro’s larger shader count overcomes this clock deficit in compute tasks. The RX Vega M GH also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (3.656 TFLOPS), whereas the Quadro M5000 has no listed FP16 capability—a potential advantage for AMD in mixed-precision workflows. API support is similar, with DirectX 12 (12_1 for NVIDIA, 12_0 for AMD) and OpenGL 4.6 on both, but Vulkan 1.4 on the Quadro versus 1.3 on the RX Vega M GH.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher average benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 leads with an average benchmark score of 31,206, compared to the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH’s 29,197—a 6.9% gap. The Quadro M5000 also ranks at the 76th percentile against the RX Vega M GH’s 74th.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M5000 provides 211.6 GB/s via 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the RX Vega M GH offers 204.8 GB/s with 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus. The Quadro’s bandwidth is 3.3% higher, but the AMD part uses a wider bus and faster memory type.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH achieves 76.16 GPixel/s, exceeding the NVIDIA Quadro M5000’s 66.43 GPixel/s by 14.6%. Both have 64 ROPs, but the RX Vega M GH’s higher clock speeds drive this advantage.

Q: What are the power and form factor differences?

A: The Quadro M5000 has a 150 W TDP, requires a 450 W suggested PSU, and is dual-slot with a 267 mm length. The RX Vega M GH has a 100 W TDP, is an integrated GPU (IGP), and needs no power connectors, making it far more compact.

Q: Does either GPU support FP16 computation?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH lists FP16 support, rated at 3.656 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32). The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 has no FP16 rating in the data.

Q: How recent are these GPUs?

A: The Quadro M5000 was released on 2015-06-28, while the RX Vega M GH came later on 2018-01-31. Both are now end-of-life, but the AMD part is newer by roughly two and a half years.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro M5000 | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH |

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

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 208 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 24.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 861 MHz | 1063 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1190 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 1024 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 211.6 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 128 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 66.43 GPixel/s | 76.16 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 132.9 GTexel/s | 114.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.252 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 3.656 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.3 |

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

| Length | 267 mm | Not listed |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the Quadro M5000’s largest victory. Scoring 29,481 against the RX Vega M GH’s 27,125, the NVIDIA part wins by 8.7%. This margin aligns with the FP32 throughput difference—the Quadro’s 4.252 TFLOPS exceeds the AMD part’s 3.656 TFLOPS by 16.3%. OpenCL workloads that scale with shader count and raw compute units will consistently favor the Quadro M5000. Its 2,048 shading units outperform the RX Vega M GH’s 1,536 by a third, and the higher texture rate of 132.9 GTexel/s versus 114.2 GTexel/s reinforces this advantage in texture-heavy compute kernels.

The Vulkan benchmark shows a tighter race. The Quadro M5000 scores 32,931, while the RX Vega M GH reaches 31,268—a 5.3% lead for NVIDIA. The reduced gap compared to OpenCL suggests the RX Vega M GH’s newer architecture and higher clocks (1,190 MHz boost versus 1,038 MHz) partially compensate for its fewer shaders. Vulkan’s lower-level API may also better expose the AMD part’s HBM2 memory characteristics, though its 204.8 GB/s bandwidth still trails the Quadro’s 211.6 GB/s. Notably, the RX Vega M GH’s pixel rate advantage of 76.16 GPixel/s does not translate to a Vulkan win, indicating that compute throughput, not pixel fill, dominates these benchmarks.

Contextualizing these results with nearest rivals clarifies the competitive landscape. The Quadro M5000’s average score of 31,206 puts it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER (31,087) and 1% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (31,532), while trailing the NVIDIA TITAN RTX (31,676) by 1.5%. The RX Vega M GH’s 29,197 average matches the AMD FirePro W8000 (29,211) within 0%, edges out the Intel Arc A370M (29,175) by 0.1%, and leads the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996) by 0.7% and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874) by 1.1%. These figures show the Quadro M5000 competing at a higher performance tier, while the RX Vega M GH sits in a mid-range bracket despite its integrated design.

The wins tally reflects this hierarchy: the Quadro M5000 wins 2 head-to-head benchmarks, the RX Vega M GH wins 0. Yet the RX Vega M GH’s 14.6% pixel-rate advantage and its 50 W lower TDP provide tangible benefits for specific use cases. The data does not record a single benchmark where the AMD part wins, but its architectural traits—higher density, faster clocks, and HBM2—suggest it could excel in fill-limited or power-constrained environments. For users prioritizing compute performance, the Quadro M5000 is the clear choice; for those needing an integrated solution with competitive memory bandwidth, the RX Vega M GH remains viable.