AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

AMD’s Radeon Vega 8 Mobile and NVIDIA’s Quadro M5000M occupy opposite ends of the mobile graphics spectrum, yet both are end-of-life products with surprisingly close aggregate performance. The data shows a 37th percentile ranking for the Quadro versus 39th for the Vega IGP, but their benchmark profiles could not be more different. The Quadro M5000M dominates modern compute workloads, while the Vega 8 Mobile holds its own in legacy DirectX tests—a split that defines their respective use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M5000M is the clear winner in any workload that stresses modern compute APIs. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 22,920 against the Vega 8’s 7,435—a 67.6% advantage that points to its 1,536 shading units and dedicated 8GB GDDR5 frame buffer. Vulkan performance is even more lopsided, with the Quadro hitting 24,875 versus 6,970, a 72% gap. For professionals running OpenCL-accelerated rendering, simulation, or machine-learning inference, the M5000M is the only viable option here.

The Vega 8 Mobile wins where the Quadro is weakest: legacy DirectX 9 and 10 workloads. While the head-to-head data only covers OpenCL and Vulkan, the full benchmark suite shows the Quadro scoring a mere 119 in Passmark DirectX 9 and 35 in DirectX 10. These scores are so low that even an integrated GPU with 512 shading units would likely outperform them. The Vega 8’s GCN 5.0 architecture, with its 2:1 FP16 ratio, suggests better throughput on older API paths—though the data does not include a direct Passmark comparison for the AMD part.

For everyday GPU compute, the Quadro’s Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,756 versus its own G3D score of 7,062 reveals a compute-to-graphics ratio that favors professional workloads. Meanwhile, the Vega 8’s average benchmark score of 7,203—higher than the Quadro’s 6,481—indicates that in mixed workloads, the AMD IGP is surprisingly competitive despite its lower raw specs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different process nodes and design philosophies. AMD’s Vega 8 Mobile is built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process with a 210 mm² die containing 4,940 million transistors, achieving a density of 23.5M per mm². NVIDIA’s Quadro M5000M uses TSMC’s 28 nm node with a much larger 398 mm² die housing 5,200 million transistors, but only 13.1M per mm². The Vega’s denser design packs more compute per area, yet the Quadro’s larger physical footprint allows for more specialized hardware.

Memory architecture is a defining difference. The Vega 8 uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system-dependent—meaning performance scales with the laptop’s RAM configuration. The Quadro has 8GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of fixed bandwidth. This explains the Quadro’s massive lead in memory-intensive benchmarks like Vulkan, where dedicated bandwidth avoids contention with CPU tasks.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The Vega 8 runs at a base of 300 MHz and boosts to 1,101 MHz, while the Quadro operates at 962 MHz base and 1,051 MHz boost. Despite the AMD part’s higher boost clock, the Quadro’s 1,536 shading units versus 512 give it a 3x advantage in raw shader count. The Quadro also has 96 texture mapping units and 64 ROPs, compared to 32 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the Vega—explaining its 67.26 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 8.808 GPixel/s.

Power consumption reflects this gulf. The Quadro is rated at 100 W TDP as an MXM module, while the Vega 8 is a 25 W IGP. The Vega’s transistor density advantage (23.5M/mm² vs 13.1M/mm²) shows AMD’s focus on efficiency per watt, while NVIDIA prioritized absolute throughput. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Vega 8 offers Vulkan 1.3 and the same DirectX 12 feature level—a minor API generation gap that favors NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head tests show a decisive NVIDIA victory, but the margin is worth scrutinizing. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 22,920 versus 7,435 for the Vega 8, a delta of -67.6%. This means the Vega 8 delivers only about a third of the Quadro’s compute performance. The gap stems from the Quadro’s 3.229 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the Vega’s 1,127.4 GFLOPS—a nearly 3x difference that aligns with the benchmark delta.

Vulkan performance is even more one-sided. The Quadro hits 24,875, while the Vega 8 manages 6,970, a -72% delta. Vulkan’s low-level API favors the Quadro’s dedicated memory and higher bandwidth (160.4 GB/s versus system-dependent). The Vega’s FP16 throughput of 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1) suggests it could theoretically close the gap in mixed-precision workloads, but neither benchmark test uses FP16, so this advantage remains unproven.

The Quadro’s Passmark scores provide additional context. Its DirectX 11 score of 54 and DirectX 12 score of 29 are remarkably low—possibly indicating driver overhead or thermal throttling in the mobile MXM form factor. The DirectX 9 score of 119 is the highest of the four API tests, suggesting the Maxwell architecture still performs best on older APIs. Meanwhile, the Vega 8’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, with an average score of 7,222—a mere 0.3% difference. This places the AMD IGP on par with a desktop GPU from several generations ago, which is impressive for an integrated solution.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro M5000M dominates in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 22,920 versus 7,435 for the Vega 8, a 67.6% advantage. Its 3.229 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 1,127.4 GFLOPS confirms the gap.

Q: Is the Vega 8 Mobile competitive with dedicated GPUs?

A: Yes, in aggregate. The AMD part’s average benchmark score of 7,203 places it within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7,222) and ahead of the GTX 560 SE (7,171) and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170).

Q: Why does the Quadro M5000M score so much higher in Vulkan?

A: The Quadro’s 24,875 Vulkan score versus 6,970 for the Vega 8 (-72% delta) likely reflects its dedicated 8GB GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the Vega’s system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Does the Vega 8 Mobile have any advantages over the Quadro?

A: The Vega 8 uses a 14 nm process with 23.5M transistors per mm² versus 13.1M on the Quadro, and it consumes only 25 W versus 100 W. Its FP16 throughput of 2.255 TFLOPS suggests mixed-precision capability, though no benchmark data confirms this.

Q: How does the Quadro perform on legacy DirectX APIs?

A: Poorly. Passmark scores show 119 in DirectX 9, 35 in DirectX 10, 54 in DirectX 11, and 29 in DirectX 12. The DirectX 9 score is its best, but still low compared to its G3D score of 7,062.

Q: Which GPU has better percentile ranking?

A: The Vega 8 Mobile ranks in the 39th percentile across all GPUs, while the Quadro M5000M ranks in the 37th. Despite the Quadro’s massive compute wins, its overall standing is slightly lower due to poor legacy API performance.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear use-case split. For professionals running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads—simulation, rendering, or GPGPU compute—the Quadro M5000M is the only choice. Its 67.6% OpenCL lead and 72% Vulkan lead are insurmountable, backed by 8GB of dedicated GDDR5 and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 100 W TDP and MXM form factor suggest it belongs in a workstation-class laptop where power is not a constraint.

For users whose workload mixes older DirectX titles, light compute, and everyday graphics, the Vega 8 Mobile is more versatile. Its 25 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, and its 39th percentile ranking beats the Quadro’s 37th. The Vega 8’s nearest rival being the GTX 750—a capable desktop card—indicates that integrated graphics have reached a respectable performance tier.

However, neither GPU should be chosen for modern gaming. The Quadro’s DirectX 11 and 12 Passmark scores of 54 and 29 are abysmal, while the Vega 8 lacks any DirectX benchmark data in this pack. The Quadro’s 2,756 GPU Compute score versus its 7,062 G3D score shows it is a compute-first part, not a gaming GPU. The Vega 8, with 512 shading units and 8 ROPs, would struggle with any contemporary title at playable settings.

The verdict hinges on workload. If the application is professional compute, the Quadro M5000M wins decisively despite its age. If the system needs an efficient IGP for mixed use, the Vega 8 Mobile offers better aggregate performance at a fraction of the power. The 72% Vulkan gap and 67.6% OpenCL gap are the decisive numbers—everything else is secondary.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M |

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

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 4,940 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 210 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 962 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1101 MHz | 1051 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 32 | 96 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.808 GPixel/s | 67.26 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 35.23 GTexel/s | 100.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,127.4 GFLOPS | 3.229 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 25 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | IGP | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2019-01-07 | 2015-08-17 |

| Predecessor | GCN 3.0 IGP | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | Navi II IGP | Quadro Pascal-M |