AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it produces a clear, if modest, result. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points against the AMD Radeon 610M’s 4,535 points. That is a 9.7% advantage for the Quadro 4000, expressed as a -8.9% delta from the Radeon’s perspective. While the older Fermi-based card takes the win, the margin is far from decisive. The Radeon 610M, however, has a second benchmark data point that the Quadro lacks: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6,353. This is substantially higher than its own OpenCL result, indicating a significant performance uplift when using the Vulkan API.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the average scores tell a slightly different story. The Radeon 610M has an average benchmark score of 5,444, while the Quadro 4000 sits at 4,979. This places the Radeon 610M in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Quadro’s 29th percentile. The Radeon’s average is buoyed by its strong Vulkan showing, which offsets its weaker OpenCL result. When examining the nearest rivals for each card, the context becomes increasingly nuanced. The Radeon 610M’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000, which scores 5,467, a negligible 0.4% difference. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X is 0.5% slower, and the Radeon R7 M440 is 0.7% faster. Meanwhile, the Quadro 4000’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which scores 4,970, a mere 0.2% difference. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics is 0.4% slower, and the Radeon R5 M430 is 0.8% slower.

The data suggests that in raw OpenCL compute, the Quadro 4000 holds a real but narrow edge. However, the Radeon 610M demonstrates superior performance in a modern cross-platform graphics API. The head-to-head result is based on a single test, and the delta is small enough that real-world application performance could easily vary. The Radeon’s Vulkan score indicates that API selection matters greatly for this card, potentially allowing it to outperform the Quadro in scenarios that leverage Vulkan. The Quadro’s OpenCL lead is its only direct win, and it is not a dominant one.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different eras of graphics architecture. The AMD Radeon 610M is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, using the Mendocino chip, and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses the Fermi architecture, based on the GF100 chip, and is built on a much older 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This generational gap is stark: the Radeon’s die size is 100 mm², while the Quadro’s is 529 mm². The Quadro packs 3,100 million transistors, a figure the Radeon’s specifications do not list, but the transistor density tells the story: 5.9M transistors per mm² for the Quadro versus the Radeon’s unspecified density. The Radeon’s smaller, denser process allows for modern features in a much smaller package.

The compute configurations differ significantly. The Radeon 610M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 4 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 4000 has double the shading units at 256, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite this, both cards achieve identical pixel rates of 7.600 GPixel/s and texture rates of 15.20 GTexel/s. Their FP32 performance is also identical at 486.4 GFLOPS. This is a remarkable coincidence, indicating that the Radeon’s newer architecture is far more efficient per compute unit. The Radeon also has 2 ray tracing cores, a feature the Quadro lacks entirely, and supports FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS, which the Quadro does not list.

Memory subsystems are completely different. The Radeon 610M uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is system-dependent and its bus width is shared. The Quadro 4000 has a dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory is a clear advantage for the Quadro in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The Radeon’s reliance on system memory is a potential bottleneck, but it also means the card is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), requiring no separate memory allocation. Power consumption reflects this: the Radeon has a TDP of 15 W, while the Quadro is rated at 142 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W PSU.

The feature sets diverge on API support. The Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, but has no listed Vulkan support. This explains the Radeon’s Vulkan benchmark score and highlights its modern API readiness. The Quadro’s interface is PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x8, offering higher bandwidth per lane. The Radeon is an IGP, meaning it is not a separate card, while the Quadro is a single-slot, 241 mm long, 111 mm high, and 20 mm wide card with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs. The Radeon’s display outputs are dependent on the portable device it is integrated into.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture, with no clear overall winner. In the only direct head-to-head benchmark, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins the OpenCL test by 8.9%. This is a tangible, if modest, victory for the older card. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth are likely contributors to this result, as is its higher shading unit count. For users running OpenCL-based compute tasks, the Quadro 4000 is the safer choice according to the benchmark data.

However, the AMD Radeon 610M counters with a strong Vulkan score of 6,353, which is 28.6% higher than its own OpenCL score. This suggests that in Vulkan-optimized applications, the Radeon would likely outperform the Quadro, which has no Vulkan support listed. The Radeon’s average benchmark score of 5,444 also exceeds the Quadro’s 4,979, placing it in a higher percentile (32nd vs 29th). The Radeon’s modern RDNA 2.0 architecture, with ray tracing cores and FP16 support, makes it a more future-proof option for newer software. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro’s 142 W, making it far more power-efficient.

The choice depends entirely on the workload. For legacy OpenCL compute or applications that rely on dedicated VRAM, the Quadro 4000’s lead in the head-to-head test is the decisive factor. For modern graphics APIs, ray tracing, or power-constrained mobile environments, the Radeon 610M is the superior choice based on its Vulkan performance and architectural features. The Quadro’s launch MSRP was 1,199 USD, but that is a historical figure with no bearing on current performance. The Radeon 610M is an IGP, meaning it is not a purchasable standalone card but rather a component of a larger system. This fundamental difference in form factor also dictates the use case: desktop workstation for the Quadro, mobile APU for the Radeon.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has an average benchmark score of 5,444, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has an average score of 4,979.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points compared to the Radeon 610M’s 4,535 points, making it 8.9% faster in that specific test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 610M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Radeon 610M has 2 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 does not list any ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Radeon 610M uses System Shared memory, with size, type, and bus width all listed as System Shared. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher power consumption rating?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a 6-pin power connector. The AMD Radeon 610M has a TDP of 15 W and uses no power connectors.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference between the two?

A: The Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The Radeon also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro has no listed Vulkan support.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in the specific scenario of OpenCL compute performance. Its head-to-head victory in Geekbench OpenCL, with a 8.9% lead, demonstrates that its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer and higher shading unit count provide a tangible benefit in this API. For users running legacy professional applications that rely heavily on OpenCL, the Quadro’s benchmark data is the strongest evidence of suitability. Its 256-bit memory bus and 89.86 GB/s bandwidth are also clear advantages for any workload that is memory-bandwidth bound. The Quadro is a dedicated, single-slot card with its own power delivery, making it a viable option for desktop workstations where power draw is not a primary concern.

The AMD Radeon 610M wins in the broader context of modern graphics and efficiency. Its Vulkan score of 6,353 is substantially higher than its OpenCL score and exceeds the Quadro’s best result, indicating that it is the better choice for Vulkan-based games and applications. The Radeon’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and ray tracing cores positions it for future software titles that leverage these features. Its 6 nm process node and 15 W TDP make it dramatically more power-efficient, winning decisively in any power-constrained scenario. As an IGP, it is also the only option for ultra-portable devices, where card dimensions and power connectors are non-factors. The Radeon’s higher average benchmark score and higher percentile ranking (32nd vs 29th) suggest it is the stronger all-around performer in the aggregate data.