AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and AMD Radeon 610M occupy the same percentile tier, but they achieve it through radically different means. The Quadro M4000 is a dedicated professional workstation card from 2015, while the Radeon 610M is a 2022 integrated graphics processor for mobile devices. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—5467 for the Quadro versus 5444 for the Radeon—a difference of just 0.4%. However, the data reveals that this statistical tie masks a complete divergence in performance character, feature support, and intended use case.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmark tests shared by both products are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the Quadro M4000 dominates both. In OpenCL, the Quadro scores 19,118 against the Radeon’s 4,535, a difference of 321.6%. In Vulkan, the margin narrows slightly but remains enormous: 24,640 versus 6,353, a 287.8% advantage. These are not close contests; the Quadro is roughly four times faster in OpenCL and nearly four times faster in Vulkan.

The Quadro’s additional benchmark data paints a fuller picture. Its Passmark G3D score is 6,680, its Passmark G2D score is 673, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,660. In legacy DirectX tests, it scores 113 in DirectX 9, 49 in DirectX 11, 33 in DirectX 10, and 26 in DirectX 12. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 680. The Radeon 610M has no corresponding data in these tests, meaning the Quadro is the only one of the two with proven performance across a wider range of workloads.

The average benchmark scores tell a cautionary tale about averaging. The Quadro’s average of 5,467 is derived from ten different tests, many of which are compute-heavy or legacy API workloads. The Radeon’s average of 5,444 comes from just two tests, both modern API benchmarks. The Radeon’s average is therefore less representative of overall capability, while the Quadro’s is broader and more robust. In head-to-head competition, the Quadro wins both available tests, giving it a 2–0 record.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,467, while the AMD Radeon 610M scores 5,444. That is a 0.4% difference in favor of the Quadro.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M4000 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the Radeon’s 4,535. This represents a 321.6% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: Is the Radeon 610M competitive in Vulkan?

A: No. The Radeon scores 6,353 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro scores 24,640. The Quadro leads by 287.8%, making the Radeon’s Vulkan performance roughly one-quarter of the Quadro’s.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The Quadro M4000 contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, with a density of 13.1M transistors per mm². The Radeon 610M’s transistor count is not listed, but its die size is 100 mm².

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the AMD Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which is a lower feature level.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro M4000 has a TDP of 120 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and needs a 300 W suggested PSU. The Radeon 610M has a 15 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU rating.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Quadro M4000 is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It has 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The Radeon 610M uses AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on the Mendocino chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 610M uses system shared memory, with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. The Quadro’s dedicated memory is a major advantage for workloads that require consistent, high-bandwidth access to data.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Radeon has a base clock of 1,500 MHz and a boost clock of 1,900 MHz. The Quadro’s base and boost clocks are not listed, but its memory clock is 1,502 MHz, or 6 Gbps effective. The Radeon’s high clock speeds partially compensate for its smaller core, but cannot overcome the Quadro’s massive advantage in raw computing resources.

Feature support shows a generational split. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 2 ray tracing cores. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but has no ray tracing cores. The Radeon also supports FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability. The Quadro’s FP32 throughput is 2.573 TFLOPS, versus the Radeon’s 486.4 GFLOPS.

The form factors could not be more different. The Quadro is a single-slot, 241 mm long, 111 mm tall card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W PSU. The Radeon is an integrated graphics processor with no slot width, no dimensions, and no power connectors. The Quadro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Radeon’s display outputs are dependent on the portable device it is integrated into.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload. The Quadro M4000 is the superior choice for any task that relies on compute throughput, raw graphics performance, or legacy API support. It wins 2–0 in head-to-head benchmarks, with margins exceeding 280% in both tests. Its 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory, 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, and 2.573 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it a capable workstation card for professional applications.

The Radeon 610M is the better option for power-constrained or space-constrained systems that need modern API support. Its 15 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and integrated form factor make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support and ray tracing cores give it a feature advantage for games and applications that use these modern APIs. However, its performance is drastically lower, and its benchmark results come from only two tests.

Neither card is a clear winner for general-purpose use. The Quadro will excel in compute-heavy professional workloads, while the Radeon will provide basic graphics capability in a low-power mobile environment. The percentile rank for both is 32, meaning they sit in the same performance tier relative to all GPUs, but the path to that tier is entirely different.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | AMD Radeon 610M |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 100 mm² |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | Not listed |

| Shading Units | 1,664 | 128 |

| TMUs | 104 | 8 |

| ROPs | 64 | 4 |

| RT Cores | 0 | 2 |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1,500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1,900 MHz |

| FP32 | 2.573 TFLOPS | 486.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 120 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-06-28 | 2022-09-19 |

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M4000 wins in every benchmark where both are measured. Its 321.6% OpenCL lead and 287.8% Vulkan lead are decisive. It also has a full suite of additional benchmark results across Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus Passmark G2D, G3D, GPU Compute, and 3DMark Steel Nomad. This breadth of tested workloads means the Quadro is the proven performer across a wide range of scenarios, from legacy applications to modern compute tasks.

The Radeon 610M wins on efficiency and modern features. Its 15 W TDP is one-eighth of the Quadro’s 120 W, and it requires no external power. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support includes ray tracing, which the Quadro lacks. Its 6 nm process is significantly more advanced than the 28 nm node used by the Quadro, and its boost clock of 1,900 MHz is higher than any clock listed for the Quadro. For a mobile device where power draw and heat are primary constraints, the Radeon is the only viable option despite its lower performance.

For desktop workstations with available power and space, the Quadro M4000 is the clear choice. Its dedicated memory, high bandwidth, and massive compute throughput make it suitable for rendering, simulation, and other professional workloads. For integrated, low-power systems, the Radeon 610M offers modern API support and ray tracing in a package that draws almost no power. The choice depends entirely on whether the priority is raw performance or efficiency and portability.