AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile graphics solutions, but only one test, Geekbench OpenCL, is shared between them. In that single head-to-head comparison, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M records a score of 5986 against 4535 for the AMD Radeon 610M, a 32% advantage. That makes the Quadro K4000M the outright winner in the only directly comparable workload, while the Radeon 610M counters with a second benchmark result, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 6353, a figure the Quadro cannot match because it lacks a corresponding Vulkan entry in the database.

Looking at the bigger picture, the Quadro K4000M sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 610M sits at the 32nd percentile. These are adjacent performance tiers, but the average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The Quadro averages 5986 across its recorded tests, while the Radeon averages 5444, a gap of roughly 10% in the NVIDIA part's favor. For OpenCL-centric workloads, the Quadro is clearly the stronger option. For Vulkan-based applications, the Radeon 610M holds the only available win, making it the pick for that specific API environment.

The Radeon 610M's nearest rivals further contextualize its position. Its average score of 5444 places it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000, 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M365X, and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M440. The Quadro K4000M, by comparison, sits within 0.1% of the AMD FirePro W4100, 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, and 0.2% behind the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server. Both cards are effectively clustered with their nearest peers, but the Quadro's 32% head-to-head margin over the Radeon is the single largest delta recorded in the database for this pairing.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the direct OpenCL benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon 610M scores 4535, giving the Quadro a 32% advantage in that test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 610M win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Radeon 610M records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6353, which is the only benchmark entry the Quadro K4000M does not have a corresponding result for in the database.

Q: How do the two compare in overall percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro K4000M is in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 610M is in the 32nd percentile, a difference of two percentile points.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each card?

A: The Quadro K4000M has an average benchmark score of 5986, while the Radeon 610M averages 5444 across its two recorded tests.

Q: How close is each card to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K4000M is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and the AMD FirePro W4100, while the Radeon 610M is within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M365X.

Q: Which card supports the newer DirectX version?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M and the AMD Radeon 610M, and that is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K4000M posts 5986 points, while the Radeon 610M posts 4535 points. The delta of 32% is substantial and reflects the Quadro's much higher raw compute throughput. The Quadro's FP32 performance is rated at 1,153.9 GFLOPS, while the Radeon 610M manages 486.4 GFLOPS, a gap that aligns with the OpenCL score difference. The Quadro also delivers a texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s against 15.20 GTexel/s for the Radeon, and a pixel rate of 12.02 GPixel/s against 7.600 GPixel/s.

The Radeon 610M does have a Vulkan benchmark result of 6353, but there is no matching Vulkan score for the Quadro K4000M in the database. As such, the Vulkan figure cannot be compared directly, only noted as the Radeon's strongest recorded output. The Radeon's Vulkan score exceeds its own OpenCL score by roughly 40%, which suggests that its RDNA 2.0 architecture handles the Vulkan API more efficiently than OpenCL. The Quadro, by contrast, has only the single OpenCL result, so its API-specific behavior cannot be characterized beyond that one measurement.

In terms of nearest rivals, the Quadro K4000M's OpenCL score of 5986 lands between the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982, with deltas of 0.2% and 0.1% respectively. The Radeon 610M's average of 5444 sits between the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 and the AMD Radeon R7 M365X at 5416, with deltas of 0.7% and 0.5%. The Quadro's rival cluster is tightly packed, with all four nearest scores within 0.3% of each other, while the Radeon's cluster spans a slightly wider 1.5% range across its four nearest rivals.

The overall win count in head-to-head tests favors the Quadro K4000M with one win against zero for the Radeon 610M, but that count only reflects the single shared test. The Radeon's Vulkan result stands as a separate data point that favors it in that specific API context.

Specification Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M and AMD Radeon 610M differ in nearly every core specification category. The Quadro uses 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the Radeon uses 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The Quadro's memory configuration is fixed at 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Radeon relies on system shared memory with a bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent. The Quadro's memory clock runs at 700 MHz, translating to 2.8 Gbps effective, while the Radeon's memory clock is not separately specified because it shares system memory.

Clock speeds show a different philosophy. The Quadro runs at a base and boost of 601 MHz, with no boost variation, while the Radeon runs at a 1500 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. Despite the Radeon's higher clocks, its smaller core configuration results in lower aggregate throughput. The Quadro's FP32 output of 1,153.9 GFLOPS more than doubles the Radeon's 486.4 GFLOPS, and the Quadro's texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s is more than triple the Radeon's 15.20 GTexel/s. The pixel rate also favors the Quadro at 12.02 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s.

Power consumption differs by a wide margin. The Quadro K4000M has a TDP of 100 W, while the Radeon 610M is rated at 15 W. Both use no external power connectors, and both are designed for portable devices with display outputs that are device dependent. The Quadro uses an MXM module slot width with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Radeon is an integrated graphics processor with a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon also includes 2 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 294 mm² and contains 3,540 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The Radeon 610M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Mendocino chip, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 6 nm process. Its die size is 100 mm², and its transistor count and density are not recorded in the database.

The generation names reflect their positioning. The Quadro belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) line, while the Radeon belongs to the Navi II IGP (Mendocino Mobile) line. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The Radeon's predecessor is the Vega II IGP and its successor is the Navi III IGP. The Quadro was released in May 2012, while the Radeon was released in September 2022, a gap of roughly a decade.

The Radeon 610M's architecture includes 2 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the Kepler-based Quadro. The Radeon also supports half-precision FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability. The Radeon's higher Vulkan support version, 1.4 versus 1.2.175, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support reflect the newer architecture's API feature set. The Quadro's lack of ray tracing and FP16 support are direct consequences of its 2012-era Kepler design.

Both GPUs are end-of-life in production status, and both are manufactured by TSMC, though at different nodes. The process node difference, 28 nm versus 6 nm, is the most fundamental architectural gap, enabling the Radeon's much higher clock speeds and lower power draw despite its smaller die.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for OpenCL-based workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M. Its 32% OpenCL score advantage over the Radeon 610M, combined with its higher FP32 throughput, texture rate, and pixel rate, makes it the stronger compute-oriented part in that API. The Quadro also has a dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory pool with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which removes the variability of system shared memory that the Radeon depends on.

The AMD Radeon 610M is the better choice for Vulkan-based applications, as it is the only one of the two with a recorded Vulkan benchmark, scoring 6353. Its much lower 15 W TDP also makes it suitable for power-constrained designs, and its ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support offer features the Quadro cannot provide. The Radeon's higher base and boost clocks, 1500 MHz and 1900 MHz, do not overcome the Quadro's larger core configuration in raw throughput, but they do reflect a more modern, efficient architecture.

For users prioritizing API coverage and modern feature support, the Radeon 610M wins on DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and ray tracing. For users prioritizing raw compute performance and dedicated memory bandwidth, the Quadro K4000M wins on every shared benchmark and every measured throughput metric. The percentile rankings, 34th for the Quadro and 32nd for the Radeon, suggest that both are near the lower middle of the GPU performance distribution, but the Quadro holds a consistent edge in the recorded data. The verdict ultimately depends on the target API and workload, but the head-to-head benchmark data favors the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M.