AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear pattern of dominance for the AMD Radeon RX 480 in the two shared workload tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 480 posts a score of 37,998 against the NVIDIA Quadro M5000’s 29,481. That is a 28.9% advantage, a substantial gap that reflects the raw compute throughput available to general-purpose workloads. The RX 480’s shading unit count of 2,304 versus the M5000’s 2,048, combined with a higher boost clock of 1266 MHz against 1038 MHz, explains much of this distance.

The Vulkan results widen the gap even further. Here, the RX 480 scores 45,968 while the Quadro M5000 trails at 32,931. The delta reaches 39.6%, meaning the AMD card finishes nearly 40% ahead in this API. This is not a marginal edge; it is a decisive margin that suggests architectural efficiency differences beyond simple core counts. The RX 480’s GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, handles Vulkan’s low-level overhead far more effectively than the Quadro M5000’s Maxwell 2.0 design on 28 nm TSMC silicon. The newer node allows higher clocks at the same 150 W TDP, and the benchmark data confirms that advantage translates into real-world performance.

Across the head-to-head set, the RX 480 wins both tests, giving it a 2-0 record. The aggregate benchmark average also favors AMD: 33,997 for the RX 480 against 31,206 for the Quadro M5000. That is a 2,791-point difference, roughly 8.9% overall. When placed against the entire GPU database, the RX 480 sits at the 78th percentile, while the Quadro M5000 lands at the 76th. Both are firmly mid-to-upper tier cards, but the RX 480 consistently edges ahead in every measurable category.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card reinforces this picture. The RX 480’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 7950, which scores 33,951, a mere 0.1% behind. The RX 560 XT is 0.4% ahead, and the RTX A2000 12 GB is 0.5% ahead. The Quadro M5000, by contrast, sits alongside the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q (0% delta), the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER (0.4% ahead), and the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (1% behind). The M5000’s rival cluster includes much newer and more powerful cards, which highlights how far behind the times its raw scores are. The RX 480 competes with cards from its own generation and slightly newer, while the M5000 is being compared to 2024-era hardware and still holding its own, which speaks to the Quadro’s professional optimization but also to its age.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the AMD Radeon RX 480 for anyone prioritizing raw benchmark performance. It wins both shared tests, has a higher average score, and occupies a higher percentile ranking. The 39.6% Vulkan lead is particularly telling: modern workloads that leverage Vulkan will see a massive difference in favor of the RX 480. Even in OpenCL, which is often considered a neutral ground, the RX 480’s 28.9% advantage leaves no room for ambiguity. If the sole criterion is computational throughput as measured by Geekbench, the choice is clear.

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 does have its own strengths, but they are not visible in the benchmark scores. Its 64 ROPs are double the RX 480’s 32, and its pixel rate of 66.43 GPixel/s far exceeds the RX 480’s 40.51 GPixel/s. This suggests superior fill-rate-bound performance in certain rasterization scenarios, even if the synthetic compute tests do not capture that advantage. The M5000 also supports DirectX 12_1 features, while the RX 480 only reaches 12_0. For professional applications that rely on specific Maxwell-era optimizations, the Quadro might still be serviceable, but the data cannot justify choosing it on performance grounds alone.

Who should pick the RX 480? Anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, which covers most modern gaming, machine learning inference, and general compute tasks. The 78th percentile ranking means it outperforms 78% of all GPUs in the database, a strong position for a card from 2016. Who should pick the Quadro M5000? Only those with specific legacy software requirements that demand NVIDIA’s professional driver stack or the higher ROP count for pixel-heavy tasks. The 76th percentile is not embarrassing, but the 39.6% Vulkan deficit is a hard pill to swallow for any current or future workload.

The verdict writes itself: the RX 480 is the superior compute card, and the Quadro M5000 is a niche product for very specific professional use cases that the benchmark suite does not fully exercise.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480, with an average score of 33,997 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M5000’s 31,206. That is a difference of 2,791 points.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The RX 480 scores 45,968 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro M5000 scores 32,931. The RX 480 leads by 39.6%, the largest margin in any shared test.

Q: Does the Quadro M5000 win any benchmark against the RX 480?

A: No. In the head-to-head tests, the RX 480 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The wins tally is 2-0 in favor of AMD.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: For the RX 480, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 7950 at 33,951 (0.1% behind). For the Quadro M5000, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q at 31,220 (0% delta).

Q: How do the percentile rankings compare?

A: The RX 480 sits at the 78th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M5000 sits at the 76th. Both are above average, but the RX 480 is higher.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Quadro M5000, with 66.43 GPixel/s versus the RX 480’s 40.51 GPixel/s. This is one area where NVIDIA’s card has a clear hardware advantage.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on multiple specification fronts. The AMD Radeon RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 uses GM204 with Maxwell 2.0. The process nodes are different: 14 nm for AMD at GlobalFoundries, 28 nm for NVIDIA at TSMC. Transistor counts are close, 5,700 million for AMD and 5,200 million for NVIDIA, but the die sizes diverge sharply: 232 mm² for AMD versus 398 mm² for NVIDIA. This yields a transistor density of 24.6M per mm² for AMD, nearly double NVIDIA’s 13.1M per mm².

Clock speeds favor AMD: a base of 1120 MHz and boost of 1266 MHz, against NVIDIA’s 861 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with AMD at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) and NVIDIA at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). Memory bandwidth follows: 256.0 GB/s for AMD, 211.6 GB/s for NVIDIA. Both have 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Compute resources differ in count and distribution. AMD has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 66.43 GPixel/s, but texture rate favors AMD at 182.3 GTexel/s against NVIDIA’s 132.9 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is higher on AMD: 5.834 TFLOPS versus 4.252 TFLOPS. AMD also lists FP16 at 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1), while NVIDIA has no FP16 specification.

Physical dimensions differ: AMD is 240 mm or 9.4 inches long, 95 mm or 3.7 inches high, and 35 mm or 1.4 inches wide. NVIDIA is 267 mm or 10.5 inches long and 111 mm or 4.4 inches high, with no width listed. Display outputs are different: AMD offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while NVIDIA offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. API support also varies: AMD reaches DirectX 12_0, NVIDIA reaches 12_1. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but NVIDIA lists Vulkan 1.4 while AMD lists Vulkan 1.3. The release dates are one year apart: AMD on 2016-06-28, NVIDIA on 2015-06-28. The launch MSRP for the RX 480 was 229 USD; the Quadro M5000 has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational. AMD’s GCN 4.0 on the Ellesmere chip represents the Arctic Islands (RX 400) family, built at 14 nm. This process shrink allows 5,700 million transistors in a 232 mm² die, a density of 24.6M per mm². The smaller node enables higher clocks, which the benchmark data confirms: the RX 480 runs at 1120 MHz base and 1266 MHz boost. GCN 4.0 also brings native FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning the card processes half-precision at the same rate as full precision, a feature absent from the Quadro M5000.

NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 on GM204 is a 28 nm design from TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a much larger 398 mm² die, yielding a density of only 13.1M per mm². The larger, older process forces lower clocks: 861 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. Maxwell 2.0 does not list FP16 support, and its FP32 throughput of 4.252 TFLOPS is 27% lower than the RX 480’s 5.834 TFLOPS. However, Maxwell 2.0 compensates with a higher ROP count of 64 versus 32, and a pixel rate of 66.43 GPixel/s that outstrips the RX 480’s 40.51 GPixel/s.

The cache and memory hierarchies differ as well. Both use GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but AMD’s memory runs faster at 2000 MHz versus 1653 MHz, producing 256.0 GB/s against 211.6 GB/s. The RX 480’s texture rate of 182.3 GTexel/s is 37% higher than the M5000’s 132.9 GTexel/s, thanks to more TMUs (144 vs 128) and higher clocks. The API feature sets diverge: AMD supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3, while NVIDIA supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. The M5000’s higher DirectX feature level is its one API advantage, though the benchmark data shows that does not translate into better Vulkan performance.

Display connectivity reflects their intended markets. The RX 480 offers modern outputs: HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a, suitable for consumer monitors and VR headsets. The Quadro M5000 sticks with DVI and DisplayPort 1.2, an older standard that lacks the bandwidth for high-refresh 4K or 8K output. The RX 480’s generation is newer by exactly one year, and that year of architectural progress shows in nearly every metric except pixel fill rate and DirectX feature level. The transistor density difference alone, 24.6M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm², is a stark illustration of how far the 14 nm node advanced over 28 nm.